Can Catholics use marijuana?

[Melkor]

Firstly, I am not trolling the forum. If asking an honest question and having a logical discussion is your definition of trolling, than you are the troll. I was looking for an article or something solid to go on. And that has been provided. Once the Church speaks, I listen. And as far as I am concerned, I would still rather use THC oil for a grave illness than morphine.

Thanks all for contributing.

Without acknowledging the existence of marijuana's religious element, your allegiance is shallow.  For, you still speak favorably about its gateway reception. The consequences of it cannot be argued, if one fails to acknowledge its existence.  And, the keyword is fail.

I didn't know you were on the Judgement Day committee. God will judge my "allegiance," whatever that means. Frankly though, I don't know what you mean by 'gateway reception.' Care to elaborate?

Its gateway is medicinal use.  And, judgement day rides on that back of its own neglect.  I refuse to be an accessory.

Thanks for taking the path of the righteous, oh noble one. You enlighten me greatly. There is much to be learned from your example.

[Philip G.]

It may also be the case that medicinal marijuana is characterized by strictly personal use.  Meaning, the user only smokes by them self.  How many of those types do you know?  They seem pretty rare.  The recreational user smokes by them self, and with others.  And, the religious user only smokes with others. 

In my opinion, this makes medicinal use no less dangerous than the others.  Because, when the pendulum swings, it swings from medicinal, past recreational, unto religious.  Genuine medicinal use may be the only way to proceed to genuine religious use.  This is why I believe a catholic cannot use it under any circumstance.  It is a near occasion of sin no matter how you look at it. 

[Philip G.]

Marijuana also remains a slippery slope unto other forms of drug use.  My landlord/roommate watches south park, so I see this stuff occasionally.  And, their portrayal of the marijuana movement is accurate. 

Warning, there are some curse words spoken in these videos, and other veiled cartoon vulgarities.  But, the message is that there is a moral element to marijuana that seeks out purity in its production, product, and use.  And, that morality lends itself to using and developing other drugs like cocaine.  The drugs and their consumption genuinely become in their minds a virtuous/charitable act.  Widespread marijuana use begins with the prohibition of alcohol, and then acts as a gateway to cocaine use by way of the dealer lacing the weed with it, and then revealing the fact after all have acknowledged their love of it.  This then proceeds to pure cocaine use.  What comes next?  It all begins with prohibition of alcohol, and is a gradualism/snowball movement that knows no end but the fires of hell.







You get a glimpse of their end came.  Their end game is religious, hence the last scene in the last video. 

[Jmartyr]

I would argue, unfortunately from past experience, that marijuana alters reality much more than cocaine.

[bigbadtrad]

I would argue, unfortunately from past experience, that marijuana alters reality much more than cocaine.

I was going to same the thing except... I forgot what I was going to say. j/k

Actually I've never smoked a cigarette so I missed talking from a personal perspective but I remember reading a journal from Jesuits back in the 30's saying the mind-altering state of marijuana must be rejected by Catholics because it would be the beginning of hallucinogens of all types to be legalized which would have unspeakable consequences.

A better perspective would be if Catholics would consider this conversation 30 years ago? How about 60 years ago? I can't.

I was in a room full of current and previous pot smokers who were talking about this subject. I was interested because as a 40 something non-smoker of all types I was interested in their verdict. Eventually they all agreed that smoking weed can't be done without getting high, even if tried with moderation.

[Gardener]

I would argue, unfortunately from past experience, that marijuana alters reality much more than cocaine.

Sheesh, how much did you smoke?

I would argue, unfortunately from past experience, that marijuana alters reality much more than cocaine.

I was going to same the thing except... I forgot what I was going to say. j/k

Actually I've never smoked a cigarette so I missed talking from a personal perspective but I remember reading a journal from Jesuits back in the 30's saying the mind-altering state of marijuana must be rejected by Catholics because it would be the beginning of hallucinogens of all types to be legalized which would have unspeakable consequences.

A better perspective would be if Catholics would consider this conversation 30 years ago? How about 60 years ago? I can't.

I was in a room full of current and previous pot smokers who were talking about this subject. I was interested because as a 40 something non-smoker of all types I was interested in their verdict. Eventually they all agreed that smoking weed can't be done without getting high, even if tried with moderation.

Again, that's a vague term. What is "high" and does it cross the line of losing the use of reason? I've watched enough episodes of Joe Rogan having perfectly reasoned conversations while he is high.

This goes to dosing, personal tolerance, etc.

My mom gets utterly tipsy from half a glass of wine. I can have half a bottle and still hold a conversation without issue. She'd be on the floor if she drank half a bottle.

The morality of this subject hinges on what is the threshold for loss of reason, simply. What, exactly, is that line? I've never read anything which actually defines that.

[Prayerful]

Never partook of pot, but I know it can turn consumers of it into useless, unmotivated lumps who cannot complete their apprenticeships. If we could do  things again, perhaps a more nuanced policy could have been tried, and would've been tried, we at a point where de-criminalised drugs become a product for large companies with no not really much more morality than the street criminal. I'm sure Big Tobacco would love to be able to infuse cigarettes with pot, or whatever makes them richer. And no more cocaine flavoured wine, even if it has Papal endorsement.

[Melkor]

I would argue, unfortunately from past experience, that marijuana alters reality much more than cocaine.

Sheesh, how much did you smoke?

I would argue, unfortunately from past experience, that marijuana alters reality much more than cocaine.

I was going to same the thing except... I forgot what I was going to say. j/k

Actually I've never smoked a cigarette so I missed talking from a personal perspective but I remember reading a journal from Jesuits back in the 30's saying the mind-altering state of marijuana must be rejected by Catholics because it would be the beginning of hallucinogens of all types to be legalized which would have unspeakable consequences.

A better perspective would be if Catholics would consider this conversation 30 years ago? How about 60 years ago? I can't.

I was in a room full of current and previous pot smokers who were talking about this subject. I was interested because as a 40 something non-smoker of all types I was interested in their verdict. Eventually they all agreed that smoking weed can't be done without getting high, even if tried with moderation.

Again, that's a vague term. What is "high" and does it cross the line of losing the use of reason? I've watched enough episodes of Joe Rogan having perfectly reasoned conversations while he is high.

This goes to dosing, personal tolerance, etc.

My mom gets utterly tipsy from half a glass of wine. I can have half a bottle and still hold a conversation without issue. She'd be on the floor if she drank half a bottle.

The morality of this subject hinges on what is the threshold for loss of reason, simply. What, exactly, is that line? I've never read anything which actually defines that.

You have a good point sir.

[Heinrich]

[yt][/yt]

[MaximGun]

Christ drank alcohol.  Many saints drank alcohol.  Alcohol is an ancient social custom going back to Noah. The greatest cultures have all consumed alcohol.  Alcohol had a very practical use up to the last century.  A method of sterilising water so you could drink liquids without getting sick.

Only degenerate cultures use drugs.  Broken down, godless, hedonistic, hopeless, pagan cultures historically. . Therefore I would never use drugs of any kind.  No saint has ever used drugs.  They were banned by all high christian cultures as degenerate.

The purpose of drinking wine, beer, whiskey, brandy, a G&T is to enjoy them.  The sole purpose of all drugs is to get high.

Once you pass the point of drinking to enjoy the taste of the drink, that is 2 or 3 drinks for me, then you are in the territory of gluttony, shortly followed by drunkeness at your 5th or 6th drink.  Smoking pot is done specifically to enter that state.  You are not quenching your thirst or enjoying the taste of dope.  The purpose is to alter your mind.

This is not true of a man who comes home and has a glass of wine or beer.

[Gardener]

1) Christ drank alcohol.  Many saints drank alcohol.  Alcohol is an ancient social custom going back to Noah. The greatest cultures have all consumed alcohol.  Alcohol had a very practical use up to the last century.  A method of sterilising water so you could drink liquids without getting sick.

2) Only degenerate cultures use drugs.  Broken down, godless, hedonistic, hopeless, pagan cultures historically. . Therefore I would never use drugs of any kind.  No saint has ever used drugs.  They were banned by all high christian cultures as degenerate.

3) The purpose of drinking wine, beer, whiskey, brandy, a G&T is to enjoy them.  The sole purpose of all drugs is to get high.

4) Once you pass the point of drinking to enjoy the taste of the drink, that is 2 or 3 drinks for me, then you are in the territory of gluttony, shortly followed by drunkeness at your 5th or 6th drink.  Smoking pot is done specifically to enter that state.  You are not quenching your thirst or enjoying the taste of dope.  The purpose is to alter your mind.

5) This is not true of a man who comes home and has a glass of wine or beer.

1) Are we to believe that after a wedding had run out of wine, which probably would be 2-3 glasses/goblets per person AT LEAST, Christ made more and threw the party into the realms of gluttony and drunkenness with your magical 5-6 number?

Alcohol has served as many things for many cultures. That sterilization is an effect is nice, but not necessarily the only reason (in truth, it would not be sterilizing so much as sending present bacteria into biostatic shock where they no longer reproduce into make-you-sick numbers; ABV necessary for sterilization would be on par w/ liquor).

Natural fermentation hovers around 5% for beer. Maybe up to 7-8% w/ special yeast or more for special varieties which bring in non-traditional ingredients. Wine and other concoctions (mead, non-grape fruit wines, etc.) can easily get up to +/-10% without anything special. So on average, I would suspect that wine then was no weaker than now. As a home brewer, I know well that certain yeasts will never achieve more than X% ABV, and that others can go quite high. I might not want that so I can rack into secondary fermentation (really an aging/mellowing process) to stop it before it goes "hot" (certain alcohol byproducts get produced due to stressed yeast and while high in ABV it can taste like paint thinner unless aged for a year or two).

2) No, as alcohol itself is a drug. So is nicotine and so is caffeine. St. Hildegard in her book "Physica" devoted some recipes to using hemp/cannabis. Pope Leo XIII drank Mariani wine which was laced with cocaine (probably how he was able to write all those great encyclicals. LOL). St. Pius X did snuff (really think he did it because he liked the taste? Come on. It was due to its mind-altering effect as a stimulant.).

3/4) Who actually likes the taste of wine, beer, whiskey, etc.? They associate teh taste with enjoyment due to the alcohol, but the taste on its own, were that associated cognitive bridge never built? No way. If there were legitimately alcohol free versions of those (as there is for beer), who would drink them? I sure as heck wouldn't. We drink for the effect of the alcohol, which for all is different in dosage to achieve the same and/or desired effect. Guess what... when someone drinks a cup of coffee and has a cigarette, or has 3 beers and pops in a fat dip of copenhagen snuff, the desired effect is mental as much as physiological.

5) Again, referencing 3/4, what effect does a glass have and why on earth would anyone swill boiled barley or rotten grape juice if it had no effect? All alcohol tastes bad. I'd never touch a drop of any drink like that had if it no alcohol, because they don't taste good at all compared to other normatively non-alcoholic drinks.
--
The only thing which would make alcohol consumption a sin is simply the loss of the use of reason -- wish someone would define that, as it's a useless platitude without said definition.

So again, it goes back to dosage in a recreational sense. If such dosage can be achieved, where it has the same effect as acceptable alcohol use, then there is no reason cannabis would be any different than dipping or smoking a cigarette.

And FWIW, I do not even touch non-THC containing CBD products, often used for anxiety, pain, etc., but having no psychoactive properties. On the off chance it has some trace amount which hits on a random drug screen, I'd be screwed. My job and its support for my family is too important to risk.

But we need to do better. Old tropes and bad analogies make us look stupid. A lot of the argument in this thread is based around the fearmongering which got cannabis illegalized in the early 1900's. It's not based in facts, nor figuring out how to achieve the happy medium of adhering to Catholic moral principles while recognizing updated information. In short, it's just Puritanism with the fat check of oligarchical lobbying money behind it.

[Melkor]

1) Christ drank alcohol.  Many saints drank alcohol.  Alcohol is an ancient social custom going back to Noah. The greatest cultures have all consumed alcohol.  Alcohol had a very practical use up to the last century.  A method of sterilising water so you could drink liquids without getting sick.

2) Only degenerate cultures use drugs.  Broken down, godless, hedonistic, hopeless, pagan cultures historically. . Therefore I would never use drugs of any kind.  No saint has ever used drugs.  They were banned by all high christian cultures as degenerate.

3) The purpose of drinking wine, beer, whiskey, brandy, a G&T is to enjoy them.  The sole purpose of all drugs is to get high.

4) Once you pass the point of drinking to enjoy the taste of the drink, that is 2 or 3 drinks for me, then you are in the territory of gluttony, shortly followed by drunkeness at your 5th or 6th drink.  Smoking pot is done specifically to enter that state.  You are not quenching your thirst or enjoying the taste of dope.  The purpose is to alter your mind.

5) This is not true of a man who comes home and has a glass of wine or beer.

1) Are we to believe that after a wedding had run out of wine, which probably would be 2-3 glasses/goblets per person AT LEAST, Christ made more and threw the party into the realms of gluttony and drunkenness with your magical 5-6 number?

Alcohol has served as many things for many cultures. That sterilization is an effect is nice, but not necessarily the only reason (in truth, it would not be sterilizing so much as sending present bacteria into biostatic shock where they no longer reproduce into make-you-sick numbers; ABV necessary for sterilization would be on par w/ liquor).

Natural fermentation hovers around 5% for beer. Maybe up to 7-8% w/ special yeast or more for special varieties which bring in non-traditional ingredients. Wine and other concoctions (mead, non-grape fruit wines, etc.) can easily get up to +/-10% without anything special. So on average, I would suspect that wine then was no weaker than now. As a home brewer, I know well that certain yeasts will never achieve more than X% ABV, and that others can go quite high. I might not want that so I can rack into secondary fermentation (really an aging/mellowing process) to stop it before it goes "hot" (certain alcohol byproducts get produced due to stressed yeast and while high in ABV it can taste like paint thinner unless aged for a year or two).

2) No, as alcohol itself is a drug. So is nicotine and so is caffeine. St. Hildegard in her book "Physica" devoted some recipes to using hemp/cannabis. Pope Leo XIII drank Mariani wine which was laced with cocaine (probably how he was able to write all those great encyclicals. LOL). St. Pius X did snuff (really think he did it because he liked the taste? Come on. It was due to its mind-altering effect as a stimulant.).

3/4) Who actually likes the taste of wine, beer, whiskey, etc.? They associate teh taste with enjoyment due to the alcohol, but the taste on its own, were that associated cognitive bridge never built? No way. If there were legitimately alcohol free versions of those (as there is for beer), who would drink them? I sure as heck wouldn't. We drink for the effect of the alcohol, which for all is different in dosage to achieve the same and/or desired effect. Guess what... when someone drinks a cup of coffee and has a cigarette, or has 3 beers and pops in a fat dip of copenhagen snuff, the desired effect is mental as much as physiological.

5) Again, referencing 3/4, what effect does a glass have and why on earth would anyone swill boiled barley or rotten grape juice if it had no effect? All alcohol tastes bad. I'd never touch a drop of any drink like that had if it no alcohol, because they don't taste good at all compared to other normatively non-alcoholic drinks.
--
The only thing which would make alcohol consumption a sin is simply the loss of the use of reason -- wish someone would define that, as it's a useless platitude without said definition.

So again, it goes back to dosage in a recreational sense. If such dosage can be achieved, where it has the same effect as acceptable alcohol use, then there is no reason cannabis would be any different than dipping or smoking a cigarette.

And FWIW, I do not even touch non-THC containing CBD products, often used for anxiety, pain, etc., but having no psychoactive properties. On the off chance it has some trace amount which hits on a random drug screen, I'd be screwed. My job and its support for my family is too important to risk.

But we need to do better. Old tropes and bad analogies make us look stupid. A lot of the argument in this thread is based around the fearmongering which got cannabis illegalized in the early 1900's. It's not based in facts, nor figuring out how to achieve the happy medium of adhering to Catholic moral principles while recognizing updated information. In short, it's just Puritanism with the fat check of oligarchical lobbying money behind it.

Yeah, who said 5-6 drinks is in the territory of drunkenness? It all comes down to personal tolerances. I personally have never been blacked out drunk, and have only thrown up twice, both times being me not aware of my limits. I was 16 the first time and 18 the other. Yet I can pound off a 12 pack of beer in a day and be totally fine. Are you telling me that each time I do this I mortally sin and need to go to Confession? No way man, that is just insanity, as well as very Puritanical in outlook. You have  a limit of 3-4 drinks, fine. Totally respect that. But don't go telling every Catholic that anything past your personal limit is mortal sin territory, because that is just BS.

[MaximGun]

If you think drinking a 12 pack of beer in a day is not gluttony then you are blind.

We are supposed to make sacrifices.  12 beers in one day is by no means moderate.  Neither is drinking the same amount of Coca Cola.

I am sure some people could eat an 18 piece KFC bargain bucket.  But it is a sin to eat that much food.  Not good for your health, not prudent or moderate behavior.

Puritans don't drink at all.  Catholics should know when to stop. I would argue that is rarely, if ever, more than twice the legal driving limit.  3, 4, 5 drinks at the very most.

[Melkor]

If you think drinking a 12 pack of beer in a day is not gluttony then you are blind.

We are supposed to make sacrifices.  12 beers in one day is by no means moderate.  Neither is drinking the same amount of Coca Cola.

I am sure some people could eat an 18 piece KFC bargain bucket.  But it is a sin to eat that much food.  Not good for your health, not prudent or moderate behavior.

Puritans don't drink at all.  Catholics should know when to stop. I would argue that is rarely, if ever, more than twice the legal driving limit.  3, 4, 5 drinks at the very most.

Did I say it was a particularly virtuous thing to consume 12 beer in a day? No, I merely pointed out that it does not necessarily lead to drunkenness. We were talking about drunkenness, not gluttony. And if anyone can eat an 18-piecer, I am sure that they have a huge stomach and are fat/obese. Gluttony in regards to alcohol is either an inordinate affection for it, which is venial if not taken too far, and drunkenness, which is excessive use of alcohol and mortal. Argue all you want man, and by all means only drink 3-4 beers at a time. For me, when I do drink, it is usually in greater amounts than smaller ones. 

[Miriam_M]

Here you go:

Starts at 11:23; goes to 11:37