Can Catholics use marijuana?

[Philip G.]

Just as marijuana use has a false religious element, alcohol consumption has a false religious "libation" element.  What that means is that there are alcoholics who may not be intoxicated, but who are non the less committing a mortal sin by way of the religious aspect.  Which one is worse?  That depends on who is guilty of the action.  But, to simply say, because I am able to continue functioning, and have a greater tolerance, there is no sin.  That is a lie.

The reason wine was blessed a the wedding feast was to aid the couple in consummating their marriage to bring about the end of the very thing, which is procreation.  Just as noah was found naked, the couple will be found naked.  Outside of that act and end, and the Eucharistic act and end, alcohol consumption can most likely soon trespass into a territory where the end is drastically different.  Fortunately, the end is not the only difference, but lets not derail this thread.

The thread has already been derailed, no worries there. And no, you are wrong. If I can have 8 beer and be as functional as you are at 2, you mean to say that I am committing a mortal sin and you are not? That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. How am I 'committing a sin by way of the religious aspect?' I may not be the most well-versed in the Faith, but never have I come across a de-facto statement saying that the threshold for mortal sin is anything over 6 drinks. It's sheer absurdity. The reason for the miracle was that Jesus was restoring the sanctity of marriage, as well as deferring to His Mother's wishes and showing us how much He loves Her. He did not bless the wine so the couple could get a buzz on and be better in bed, as you imply. This is ridiculous.

I once knew a man who said that before he would drink socially, he would consume a certain substance so that he would not get drunk as fast.  And, the reason for doing this was in order to get his drinking buddies hammered before him so that their belligerency would serve as his entertainment.  Who sins more in this case?  Was it the drunkard who got intoxicated sooner and perhaps ended up either in a bed with either a stranger or in an alley passed out in his own vomit?  Or, was it the one who served to get the other intoxicated, while perhaps not suffering any of those same physical effects?  One lost the use of reason, while the other did not.  That is the thing about evil, one cannot say it is not reasonable.  But, the just man lives by faith.

The thing about my example is that it can be reduced from its extreme while preserving its relation.  It can be reduced to remove the intent of the one, and the shameful result of the other.  But, one still loses their use of reason, while the other does not.  However, whose sin is greater?

The saying "know you limits" comes to mind.  But, neither in the eucharist, or at the wedding feast is alcohol consumed in private.  Alcohol consumption is a social affair.  Therefore, if one loses their use of reason, they are not the only one to blame. 

[christulsa]

Could Jesus have sampled the local weed?   Bilbo did.

[lauermar]

The American Society of Addiction Medicine has always regarded cannabis as a gateway to future drug abuse and conversion to other drugs that are more dangerous. They discouraged legalization until recently, but with a caveat: that public health programs be expanded and funded to handle the health problems that will follow. This I read in their position paper. It is searchable.

Jesus Christ drank wine but did not use cannabis or other drugs. On the cross he was offered wine with gall for pain but didn't take it.

Cannabis isn't soluble in body fats, and only 50% of it is excreted after a week. It has a long half life. It is known to reduce fertility in males and females. I find it ironic that some Catholics claim the COVID-19 vaccine is harmful to fertility when there's no conclusive study. And while the effects of cannabis on fertility are proven, they don't object to it.

Some prescription medications can be addicting but it is the responsibility of physicians to monitor patient use. There are safer and more effective drugs than cannabis to alleviate ocular pressure, cancer pain, muscle cramps and medical wasting. Marinol was a Solvay drug used for cachexia in AIDS, and was highly effective without getting the user high.

[Melkor]

Jesus Christ drank wine but did not use cannabis or other drugs. On the cross he was offered wine with gall for pain but didn't take it.

Yes, but he did it so as to feel every ounce of pain for our salvation, because wine/gall was given so that the victim could get juiced and ignore pain better. I think that if there was a 'weed' culture in Our Lord's time, He may have smoked a joint for charity's sake. I am not saying He would get stoned or anything like that, but theoretically, if you can smoke cannabis without losing reason, than it is not a sin.

[lauermar]

That is presumptuous, Melkor. Speculating that Jesus might smoke cannabis is wrong. Don't go there.

[Melkor]

That is presumptuous, Melkor. Speculating that Jesus might smoke cannabis is wrong. Don't go there.

You are absolutely right. I cannot edit my post though but I take my statement back.

[ChristusRex]

From Catholic theologian Jone. Retrieved from introiboadaltaredei blog.

"Since morphine, opium, chloroform and similar drugs can also deprive one of the use of his reason temporarily, that which was said of intoxicating drinks holds also for narcotics. To use narcotics in small quantities and only occasionally, is a venial sin if done without a sufficient reason. Any proportionately good reason justifies their use, e.g., to calm the nerves, dispel insomnia, etc. Such use becomes gravely sinful if it creates an habitual craving for 'dope' which is more difficult to overcome than dipsomania and more injurious to health. To use drugs in greater quantities so as to lose the use of one's reason is itself a mortal sin; but for a good reason it is permissible. Such a good reason is had in case of an operation, i.e., that the patient be rendered insensible to intense pain, or that one might remain calm under the knife. In like manner one may administer opiates to one who is suffering greatly in order to alleviate his pain." (See Moral Theology, Newman Press, [1961], pgs. 57-58; Emphasis mine).