Smoking a sin?
#41
(01-09-2011, 01:38 AM)Virgil the Roman Wrote: Considering ID (Father) who is the resident trad priest here in the 'tank, is fine with smoking; I highly doubt that it was a sin.  Or he would have spoken upon it.

How is it not a grave matter?

It being a sin is a different question, as it includes more than the act.
Reply
#42
(01-09-2011, 02:03 AM)Rosarium Wrote:
(01-09-2011, 01:38 AM)Virgil the Roman Wrote: Considering ID (Father) who is the resident trad priest here in the 'tank, is fine with smoking; I highly doubt that it was a sin.  Or he would have spoken upon it.

How is it not a grave matter?

It being a sin is a different question, as it includes more than the act.

"How is it not a grave matter?"

You have yet to produce any compelling evidence that it is a grave matter or even a venial sin, it seems that you are taking authority upon yourself to proclaim something gravely sinful which the Church has not formally spoken upon  and of something which at least
a few saints approved of and used(St.Pius X, St.Padre Pio).
The Catechism implies it is not sinful when used moderately:

2289 If morality requires respect for the life of the body, it does not make it an absolute value. It rejects a neo-pagan notion that tends to promote the cult of the body, to sacrifice everything for it's sake, to idolize physical perfection and success at sports. By its selective preference of the strong over the weak, such a conception can lead to the perversion of human relationships.

2290 The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others' safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.

Reply
#43
Nevermind. I had a response: however, I think it better if I did not.



Ciao.
Reply
#44
Let us forget specifics and go into theory. It is less complicated than reality.

Which of these could be a grave matter to use without good reason?

* A substance and has nutritional value
* A substance with no nutritional value
* A substance with no nutritional value, and temporary negative effects
* A substance with no nutritional value, and long lasting negative effects
* A substance with no nutritional value, but may cause a person to be addicted to it without negative effects
* A substance with no nutritional value, but may cause a person to be addicted to it with negative effects

A hypothetical substance which has no nutritional value, possible addiction, and possible negative effects, with no necessary reason for use is hard to defend.

Due to the environment and culture in which a person lives, the objective standards may be lost. It may seem natural even. One cannot accuse individuals of sinning, but how is the act of purposefully ingesting burning chemicals with knowledge of the dangers and possible addiction, which will be statistically unlikely to break, with no reason to do so, not a sin?

It is what it is. Any avoidable evil is "excessive" isn't it? It would be wrong to purposefully be a little bit evil...that would just be evil. One may have knowledge of personal failings, but to accept them or even encourage them, would make them more than what they originally were.

If one purposely becomes a slave to the flesh, then that person is in danger. We need to eat, drink, and it is holy to be married, but they are so easily perverted. Gluttony, drunkenness and sexual depravity are known evils. We all (probably) have to confront our concupiscences and the constant effects of the fall which can easily lead us to become slaves to the flesh by means of those appetites.

Romans 13:14 Wrote:But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh in its concupiscences.

I am not really concerned with the physical effects of smoking, but its effects on the will. This is the gravest danger. To introduce yet another means of worshiping the flesh is a grave mistake. We already have to deal with our appetites which we need, but to introduce a new one? Wouldn't that be perverse?

Reply
#45
How about smoking on a fast day?
Reply
#46
I don't think smoking in general is a sin, but its not good for you either. I don't think smoking on a fast day would be a sin because a cigarette is not food. Now if you smoke on a fast day because you gave it up for lent or something, then I think it would be a sin.
Reply
#47
I smoke for the poor souls- cause it's good for their souls, and mine  :laughing:

Reply
#48
If nothing else, I tend to think that smoking is extremely rude to those around you. 
Reply
#49
I think there are two primary negative health effects of smoking.  First is the effect it has on your mood.  Like anything else that stimulates you, it is always followed by a crash.  So, regular smoking makes the "peaks" higher and the "valleys" lower.  Second, it makes you significantly more prone to sinus and chest congestion and, as a result, sinus and chest infections, which, eventually can progress into chronic bronchitis and of course, pnuemonia, as well as what they call ephysema (where the lungs are damaged).  Naturally, those things wouldn't be much of an issue, until you were older, but it still takes its regular toll, while you are younger.  Of course, long term consumption of spicy food and carbonated beverages, generally leads to stomach problems (I'm sure we've all seen the commercials for drugs like Prilosex, being marketed to middle aged people).  Regular consumption of sugar, causes a similar kind of effect in mood and can lead to diabetes and high blood pressure.  High blood pressure is usually controlled by not eating sugar or flour and eating at least six servings of whole grain a day.  Regular consumption of saturated fats, raises cholesterol and, hence, can lead to heart disease.  Caffeine is going to have the same kind of effect on mood (higher peaks and lower valleys) as well as stomach trouble.  You just can't win!  :laughing:

So, there are real consquences to what we put in our mouths.  On the other hand, Jesus turned the water into wine, ate bread (not wheat berries) and meat, not egg whites.  I think the real moral issue, in regards to this stuff, is how our culture has put Profit (love of money), above everything else. 


 
Reply
#50
(04-04-2011, 04:22 PM)Andrew Wrote: I think there are two primary negative health effects of smoking.  First is the effect it has on your mood.  Like anything else that stimulates you, it is always followed by a crash.  So, regular smoking makes the "peaks" higher and the "valleys" lower.  Second, it makes you significantly more prone to sinus and chest congestion and, as a result, sinus and chest infections, which, eventually can progress into chronic bronchitis and of course, pnuemonia, as well as what they call ephysema (where the lungs are damaged).  Naturally, those things wouldn't be much of an issue, until you were older, but it still takes its regular toll, while you are younger.  Of course, long term consumption of spicy food and carbonated beverages, generally leads to stomach problems (I'm sure we've all seen the commercials for drugs like Prilosex, being marketed to middle aged people).  Regular consumption of sugar, causes a similar kind of effect in mood and can lead to diabetes and high blood pressure.  High blood pressure is usually controlled by not eating sugar or flour and eating at least six servings of whole grain a day.  Regular consumption of saturated fats, raises cholesterol and, hence, can lead to heart disease.  Caffeine is going to have the same kind of effect on mood (higher peaks and lower valleys) as well as stomach trouble.  You just can't win!   :laughing:

So, there are real consquences to what we put in our mouths.  On the other hand, Jesus turned the water into wine, ate bread (not wheat berries) and meat, not egg whites.  I think the real moral issue, in regards to this stuff, is how our culture has put Profit (love of money), above everything else. 


 

Well, I think another thing about it that has to be taken into account is that smoking can affect the health of those around the smoker.  It doesn't just affect the one person.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)