MARIJUANA

[JoeVoxxPop]

What a bunch of potheads.

lol
are you saying this is coloring their opinions?

[Jesusbrea]

Does any sound moral theologian say anything on the issue? Prümmer, Jone, McCallan & Hugh?

I do think that as it is a gateway drug, it should be avoided.

Cigarettes are the real gateway drug. If we are to look at the real numbers, I think you'll find that to be the case.

We do not need a "sound moral theologian" to address a specific plant. Its effects, and the general principles are enough.

We are not puritans, though, so I don't think it is intrinsically, per se evil or "bad."

And that is a misuse of the word "puritan". It does not mean what you think it means.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIP6EwqMEoE" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIP6EwqMEoE</a>

[Jesusbrea]

My two cents on the subject "can a Catholic smoke pot". I'll just imagine a scenario of WWOLDT (what would Our Lord do today?).

Would He drink alcohol?... asuming the wine at Canaan had alcohol (prots may disagree with this), I wouldn't find it awkward seeing Him drink alcohol in moderation.
Would He smoke cigarrettes?... well, I don't know, I guess not, but he wouldn't be so hard on occasional smokers (I admittedly have a nicotine-tobacco dependency).
Would He smoke pot? ... uhhh, I don't think so.

And perhaps it has nothing to do with the drug in itself but with the cultural connotations of it's usage and it's association with underground libertine circles. I can't say it is a sin to smoke pot but remember what Saint Paul said "everything is permissible but not everything is good".

[Su]

From my earlier post:

Let me put the following scenario to you. A mafia boss, who coerces compliance with his wishes by force, has a set of "rules" that everyone in his region knows they need to obey, or they will suffer violence. The local government is incompetent and corrupt, often violating its own rules (i.e. its constitution), and the police force is unable to enforce the "official" law. Eventually, the government deteriorates to the point that it is unable to exercise authority, powerless to defy the mafia boss. No one votes in the elections, and no one pays attention or respect to the police. Finally, the mafia boss becomes the de facto ruler of his region, being the only one able to enforce any sort of order (via his "rules" and the violence he employs to assure compliance). He codifies his "rules" on paper and calls it the law. No one publicly disagrees, because they are afraid of suffering violence or being imprisoned.

So is the mafia boss now the right and lawful authority under God? Without him, there would be no "government," as the previous government is now just a toothless ghost of a government, lacking in all credibility and power. Has the mafia boss, who is now the higher authority with the backing of his own law, somehow obtained the status of "lawful authority under God"?

It would seem that the "mafia boss" now has the responsibility under God to exercise his authority for a good End.

However, this is something which would require a rather strong dissolution of the previous governing body. For example, most criminal organisations are able to exist (sometimes flourish) under another ruling body (the government). The fact that the government is corrupt or unwilling to protect its people is a failing in itself, but it does not dissolve the government immediately.

However, if you removed "mafia boss" and replaced it with a general term for a new government, then you'll find your situation is not only common, it is how new governments are formed all the time.

The use of violence (imprisonment, etc) in enforcing one's will is the mark of government.

[JoeVoxxPop]

Your wrong. The nuclear family is the model of government at the atomic level so to speak. Violence is not part of a good family. Imprisonment..yeah I guess I can ground my kids.

[Phillipus Iacobus]

I don't mean puritan theologically, but morally.

[Su]

Your wrong. The nuclear family is the model of government at the atomic level so to speak. Violence is not part of a good family. Imprisonment..yeah I guess I can ground my kids.

The ability to enforce law is essential to government.

[rbjmartin]

Your wrong. The nuclear family is the model of government at the atomic level so to speak. Violence is not part of a good family. Imprisonment..yeah I guess I can ground my kids.

The ability to enforce law is essential to government.

So then you agree with Bastiat, who tells us the law is force. If this is the case, then the role of law should be minimized to the protection of what is most essential to man in his relationships with those around him, i.e. protection of his life, liberty, and property against those who would violate these. Beyond this use of the law, because law is force, there is a virtual guarantee of abuse and violation of life, liberty, and property. Yet your version of law allows for the boundless use of force, because force itself seems to be the only source of authority in your philosophy.

[GottmitunsAlex]

My two cents on the subject "can a Catholic smoke pot". I'll just imagine a scenario of WWOLDT (what would Our Lord do today?).

Would He drink alcohol?... asuming the wine at Canaan had alcohol (prots may disagree with this), I wouldn't find it awkward seeing Him drink alcohol in moderation.
Would He smoke cigarrettes?... well, I don't know, I guess not, but he wouldn't be so hard on occasional smokers (I admittedly have a nicotine-tobacco dependency).
Would He smoke pot? ... uhhh, I don't think so.

And perhaps it has nothing to do with the drug in itself but with the cultural connotations of it's usage and it's association with underground libertine circles. I can't say it is a sin to smoke pot but remember what Saint Paul said "everything is permissible but not everything is good".

+1

[Su]

So then you agree with Bastiat, who tells us the law is force. If this is the case, then the role of law should be minimized to the protection of what is most essential to man in his relationships with those around him, i.e. protection of his life, liberty, and property against those who would violate these. Beyond this use of the law, because law is force, there is a virtual guarantee of abuse and violation of life, liberty, and property. Yet your version of law allows for the boundless use of force, because force itself seems to be the only source of authority in your philosophy.

No, I did not agree with that person. I said it was essential to government.

Think about it...what good is the ability to make laws if one is either unable or unwilling to enforce them? This applies in the family and for the largest governments.

My "version" of law is better than those who can arbitrarily deny the authority of any ruling body one doesn't like.

And affirming that government can and should use force to enforce the laws it makes does not absolve government of responsibility to act in accordance with the will of God.

You are the one which gave a far out hypothetical situation. That is not my fault. Let us examine then a conquering nation. The nation which conquers another obtains lawful authority (even if the invasion or conduct during it was immoral) by the thinking of the Church because they have shown themselves to be superior in providing for the protection of the people. They now have the duty to follow proper authority and that authority has the duty to act in accordance with the will of God. Otherwise, no government could be formed ever because one could always find a reason to say any given government is illegitimate.

The ability to enforce law has always been one of the defining marks of authority.