How can i defend the Catholic belief that abortion, homesexual marriage and smoking cannabis is sinful?

I have my arguments but none of them seem to work. Of curse when i was debating nobody really considered my arguments right from the beginning because i was arguing something they believed firmly. For abortion i said that it is the same as murder, you only kill the child when its very very young. It would of made no difference if you would kill him/her when he was two or three. For homosexual marriage i said, that you don’t support the marriage between a horse and a human for example but you do support homosexual marriage. Both are unnatrual. For smoking cannabis i said that it is harmful, you can get addicted,… But they said that cannabis is more safe than alchochol and tobacco cigarettes and that nobody has ever died of cannabis. I really didn’t know much about that area so i couldn’t tell more. Anyway, im probably going to face this questions with the same people soon so i would appreciate some better, firm arguments. Thank you.

Does the Church teach that smoking cannabis is intrinsically wrong? If there isn’t a clear teaching on this, I’d advise against committing yourself to that position. That doesn’t mean that you should say that it’s OK to smoke cannabis, but don’t involve the Church in it unless the Church really has a clear teaching.

Abortion is the easiest to argue (from a purely logical point of view–obviously it’s very difficult emotionally). Ask them when, in their opinion, the child becomes a person whom it is wrong to kill. There is no coherent argument I have ever seen that marks birth as that moment. The closest was an argument that actually portrayed personhood as resulting from acceptance into society, so that it wasn’t the biological event itself that mattered. Many prochoice people will say “viability.” That ought to lead them to support bans on abortion after viability, but somehow this doesn’t seem to happen often:eek:. And viability is a moving target given scientific developments. (I’ve heard people say “well, we mean viability without all kinds of technological assistance,” but that makes no sense, because newborn infants need plenty of help to survive. Fundamentally this position amounts to saying “helplessness makes you unworthy to live.” It really isn’t a coherent position about the nature of life.

I would not suggest that you try to prove them wrong, though. I would suggest rather that you explain the rationale for the Church’s position: the only point at which we can reasonably say that a new person has entered the world is conception. Make them see that the position is reasonable. That’s the best you can probably hope for at the start.

Homosexuality is a harder sell. The problem is that people assume that marriage is about the happiness of two individual people. Point out that the Church doesn’t accept remarriage of divorced people (unless the first marriage has been annulled) either. It’s not singling out gay people. It has an understanding of marriage that is about sacramentally mirroring the relationship between us and God, and about bringing forth children through a union of the two halves of the human race, which God created (the two halves, that is) for that purpose. The Catholic understanding of marriage is challenging for everyone. Don’t try to arouse a sense of disgust at homosexuals. That is not only rude and dehumanizing to homosexuals (in my opinion), but will backfire in practice for sure. Focus on the positive vision of what marriage is in Catholic teaching.

These aren’t sure-fire tips to win a debate, just a few suggestions for a place to start. Perhaps you could provide more specifics on what your friends are arguing?

Remember that the point isn’t to “win” a debate but to witness the truth to them in love. If they go away thinking “well, I still don’t agree but I realize that Catholics have some reasons for what they believe and aren’t just hateful, irrational people,” you will have accomplished a great deal.


I know that the Church doesn’t specifically teach that cannabis is a sin. That is my belief so i just put it into the title without consideration. But still i want to defend my classmates(with whom i am debating) from cannabis that leads to bad things.

My classmates are accusing me of being unhuman because of my opposition of homosexual marriage. Well with the abortion i don’t really need much help. They didn’t really make a good argument for the morality of aboriton. I just need better arguments against the morality of homosexual marriage.

These 5 short articles may help you in debating homosexuality in regards to Marriage.

And this article will DEFINITELY help:

That’s the trick isn’t it? You still want to smoke cannabis so you can’t fully believe, you still wish to fornicate and think contraception is a good thing and you know some gay people and they are good people. It’s hard to agree with Catholicism on this and it’s also held me back.

I’m not sure what you are saying. It’s hard to agree with the Church because you personally wish to indulge in immoral behavior? I’m confused by the rational.

It all boils down to having an eternal outlook rather than a temporal outlook (longterm future vs. shortterm earthly life).

You might find this one helpful: Are we more concerned with earthly happiness and rights, or with eternal destination?

Catechism of the Catholic Church

2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.

211 The political community has a duty to honor the family, to assist it, and to ensure especially:
–the freedom to establish a family, have children, and bring them up in keeping with the family’s own moral and religious convictions;
–the protection of the stability of the marriage bond and the institution of the family;
–the freedom to profess one’s faith, to hand it on, and raise one’s children in it, with the necessary means and institutions;
–the right to private property, to free enterprise, to obtain work and housing, and the right to emigrate;
–in keeping with the country’s institutions, the right to medical care, assistance for the aged, and family benefits;
–the protection of security and health, especially with respect to dangers like drugs, pornography, alcoholism, etc.;
–the freedom to form associations with other families and so to have representation before civil authority.15

I know that is not easy, I will try to tell you some of my ideas, i hope they will help you!.
in regards to gay marriage: marriage is not just a matter of love but is also connected to the possibility of having children, the State in fact gives the rights because in return you as family give life and educate the children. A gay couple will never have children.
I know that there are infertile couples who are getting married too, but the sterility of a gay couple is not the same type of sterility of a heterosexual couple: two men will never, under any circumstances, procreate while in the case of a man and a woman, the problem of infertility concerns only the two of them and might even resolve over time. Moreover, from the point of view of the Church, the spouses become one flesh, consuming the wedding. Well, two men or two women, cannot become one flesh, what they do is simply an imitation against nature of what is the real sex, i.e. donating yourself to the person you love.

Yes, but ahs summed it up much better than I.


Eternity isn’t a long-term future. Eternity, as defined by Boethius, is “the simultaneously whole and perfect possession of endless life.” It’s now or it’s nothing. (Granted, we do not possess it now in the way we will in the future. But it isn’t an endless series of moments stretching into the future. It’s the boundless life of God, in which we share now by grace and have the promise of sharing in more fully some day.)

This is not a quibble. It’s vital to the questions raised by the OP. To respond to these issues by some form of “delayed gratification” argument is morally and spiritually fatal. Rather, we need to show how the Church’s position leads to more abundant life now as well as the promise of even more abundant life later. We only know the latter through the former, anyway.



That was a terrible post by all accounts but in hindsight what I meant to say was this: People will say they do all these immoral things like fornicating, smoking weed or having abortions, it’s quite normal for a lot of people. I myself have been brought up in this way, in that environment and I’m finding it difficult to agree with Catholicism on these issues, except for fornication because honestly, I could give or take that either way. I don’t smoke cannabis, but I would - if it was legal.
So basically, I am monitoring this thread to see what people say and convince the likes of me also.

I don’t disagree with you. You are right that I chose poorly in my over-simplified summary. But I don’t see where you got a “delayed gratification argument” from my post or from the article I linked to. Can you please show me the words I wrote that implied this “delayed gratification argument” and explain why they implied such? I’m not seeing it.

The truth is not dependent on what people consider normal, or how they have been raised, or whether you want to participate in immoral activities. In fact, you called them immoral yourself, so it seems like they you do believe they are wrong. “The truth is the same today, yesterday, and forever.” (EWTN)
I get that your background makes it hard for you to accept all these truths, but I hope you realize that the truth is not dependent on normalcy or background, or even whether you believe it. I will pray for you. I suggest that you pray as well.

I really like the quote that I think I’ve read here in the forums a few times:
"The truth is still the truth, even if no one believes it."

Hi Timi Celcer,

I think the most important issue out of all of those by far is abortion, so i’ll try and help you with arguments that I have come accross on that issue first.

I find this issue of abortion really quite simple, as I like what Pope Francis said.

The pregnant woman doesn’t carry a toothbrush in her womb, nor a tumor. Science teaches that from the moment of conception, the new being has all the genetic code. It’s impressive. It’s not, therefore, a religious question but clearly a moral one, based on science. - Pope Francis

It is as simple as this, I find pro-choice supporters always try to obscure this obvious truth in order to justify or defend such actions.

Those who promote abortion or abortions that seek to snatch from the Author and Lord of life His legitimate and sole rights… those who under the slogan that “a woman has the right to decide about her own body”, are concealing the “right” to kill, which will never be a right.

I believe they are trying to defend the indefensible, to justify the unjustifiable.

Prodigal_Son I believe had a fantastic question for them on another thread.

I believe Ravi Zacharias had another good way of trying to persuade those who advocate abortion in this short youtube clip.

Ravi Zacharias Q & A: Abortion and Free Will

I also believe Cirdan XII had a fantastic reponse on another thread when he was replying to those who try to justify it by a saying it’s a form of euthanasia.

Note: there’s always ‘adoption’ but I guess they prefer to opt for murder.

*“It is not ‘progressive’ to try to resolve problems by eliminating a human life.” *- Pope Francis

Pope Francis: Abortion ‘cries out in vengeance to God’; Church will never change teaching

There are also thousands of other extremely strong arguments, so if you cannot convince them, ask them if they are willing to come onto Catholic Answers Forum and vouch for pro choice.

I hope I have been able to help you with this.

Thank you for reading

“The truth is the truth even if no one believes it and a lie is a lie even if everyone believes it.”

I don’t know who’s quote it is either, but Ive read that one on here too and I also really enjoyed it. :thumbsup:

If your interested, there are two threads going atm that I have been on about same sex marriage, I think they have displayed nearly all of the arguments that are presented on this issue for and against (they are quite long though) - Federal judge overturns Utah’s ban on gay marriage Does anyone here, that believes in God, actually think that god accepts gay marriage?

Jesus when he was accused of something or trying to be tricked by the pharisees, he usually responded by asking them a question before answering theirs. So I would ask your classmates, “what is marriage?” to find out what it is that they think you oppose. This way you can eliminate all of the misconceptions and address the issue or target the misconceptions one at a time.

I think you will be very suprised at just how much the pro gay marriage supporters stutter and stumble or avoid answering the most basic and fundamental question of what a marriage is.

I think it’s only wise to start with the question of what a marriage is, of what it is people are trying to re-define, which is where I assume most people would start, as the good old G.K Chesterton said “Don’t take down a fence until you know the reason it was put up.”

I think alot of those people who are passionately pushing for same sex marriage are the same ones who will turn around afterwards and say “What’s the point of marriage anyway? I don’t even know why people get married at all.”

I’ve found that same sex marriage advocates always seem to refer to it as ‘marriage equality’ and that to be against same sex civil marriage is discrimination (or whatever term they use). However if we are discriminating or against ‘marriage equality’ by saying that marriage is between a man and a woman. If we don’t have the right to ‘force’ … as they say, our definition of marriage being between a man and a woman onto them, than what right do they have to force their definition of marriage being between two people onto those who think it should be between more than two people? and etc etc.

So I believe that either they advocate the legalisation of every union that someone at any whim or fancy wishes to call a marriage or they themselves are also discriminating and are also against ‘marriage equality’.

And this opens the door to many other supposedly valid definitions and once marriage can mean anything, than pretty soon it means nothing.

I was watching a Dr Phil episode on this controversial issue of SSM and the conclusion Dr Phil had reached was basically “How will allowing this homosexual couple to marry affect your marriage?” And I believe on the outside this looks like a very good and legitimate question.

However, No one is imposing any other unions someone at a whim or fancy wishes to call a marriage on me either, they are just including it into the definition and saying “If you don’t agree with it than just don’t do it” and like I said, once marriage can mean anything, than pretty soon it means nothing.

So my answer to that question would be “It doesn’t, isntead it makes a mockery of marriage and once marriage can mean anything than pretty soon it means nothing.”

As a poster named Ender on another thread so well articulated it -

I believe Ender is absolutely correct here (and before someone uses the “A House cannot give consent” it wouldn’t need to, because a House is your own personal property and thus it would be absurd to require consent, not simply because it can’t give consent, but because you don’t need consent to do as you wish with your own personal property provided it doesn’t harm anyone).

Marriage being only between a man and a woman is a self evident truth in the reality that men and women are clearly designed for one another, the reality of the “reproductive system” the reality that all evidence points to our sexual organs being designed for reproduction, being designed to be used a certain way.

The sexual acts of homosexuality means to use the bodies organs in a manner in which they are not designed to be used for and when we misuse something, there are generally consequences, such as the ones outlined below by Diana Catherine.

And for all of those who reject design, I believe this visual aid is handy :smiley:

Please continue to next post -

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit