This says:
Smoking in moderation is not a sin at all (CCC 2290).
The statement "Smoking in moderation is not a sin at all" can be found elsewhere like here and somewhere there.
I have two concerns on that statement.
First concern: But what about CCC 2291?
Second concern: The Catholic Church is against masturbation.
My opinion is that smoking is worse than masturbation so if the Catholic Church will not allow even a single instance of masturbation, how can it allow even a single instance of smoking?
The Catholic Church believes that action that lead to good effects or no bad effects does not mean the action is good. But an action that has a lot of bad effects and serious risks and little good effects to justify the bad effects and serious risks, how can such an action be anything but bad?
Does the Catholic Church really consider masturbation to be more harmful or a graver offense than smoking? Does the Catholic Church consider non-excessive smoking to be not an offense or not harmful at all?
I find would it quite absurd if either is the case. All of the Catholic Church's arguments against masturbation apply to smoking as well.
From the Catechism:
2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."138 "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."139
To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.
So why can't we say anything like this?
By smoking is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the lungs in order to derive pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that smoking is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."138 "The deliberate use of the respiratory faculty, for whatever reason, that causes harm to anyone is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here respiratory pleasure is sought at the cost the health of one's self or others which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of health and human breathing is achieved."
To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.
I found a thread related to this topic on a Catholic forum, but the matter doesn't seem to have been resolved.
First post in the thread (I added the bold):
Now, how can we compare masturbation to anything else by allegory? I compare it to eating nutrition-less foods, or smoking. We consider a bit of absolutely-unhealthy chocolate now-and-again to be acceptable, or even a pack of cigarettes on a Sunday. These are not considered grave sins, only disordered pleasures! Nutrition, however is the very point of the digestive faculty, and proper-breathing is the very foundation of the lungs. By comparison, masturbation is an abuse of the sexual faculty; so, all faculties in a human body being equal, masturbation can only be a disordered attachment, not a grave sin. The parallel is complete.
If you can eat a big chocolate cake once a year, why can't you masturbate once a year? Smoking? Red wine? Fatty foods? How far can this stretch? We cannot deny everything to our bodies, like gnostics. This is very frustrating because I see no problem whatever, yet my conscience has been formed entirely around avoiding masturbation.
Can someone explain why that is not just as disordered as masturbation? Smoking is purely for one's own pleasure (just like masturbation) and it uses a part of the body in a way that is at odds with its intended purpose (just like masturbation).
Why is the deliberate over-stimulation of the glottis, tongue, pleasure-receptors, etc. only "potentially" a (venial) sin, whereas the deliberate over-stimulation of the glands-penis or clitoral faculty always "actually" a mortal sin? This seems very odd and dualistic.
Below I have listed some arguments for my opinion that smoking is worse than masturbation. I hope I won't come across as someone trying to justify masturbation. I believe it is immoral but that smoking is immoral as well and I am trying to argue my case that smoking is immoral based on the fact smoking is more harmful than masturbation.
I find it quite absurd that the Catholic Church would not mind if their followers smoked and taught their children to smoke since that seems to be the logical conclusion if non-excessive smoking is deemed not sinful. (Just imagine a priest visiting his (adult) nieces or nephews for Christmas and giving them a pack of cigarettes)
Some points about smoking and masturbation:
If smoking and masturbation are harmful recreational activities, smoking is artificial and therefore more harmful.
Smoking introduces a new substance or substances into the body while masturbation has little physical difference from sex in terms of what the body releases or takes in. Smoking of course is of a higher category than eating junk food.
Smoking can cause "vascular stenosis, lung cancer,[46] heart attacks[47] and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease." Masturbation has no such physical health risks. Masturbation can be argued to have mental health risks but so does smoking. "No causal relationship is known between masturbation and any form of mental or physical disorder."
"The medical consensus is that masturbation is a medically healthy and psychologically normal habit.". I don't think there's any such medical consensus for smoking. I mean just look at this section on smoking health risks on Wikipedia. Smoking during pregnancy can cause fetuses to have mental illnesses. If masturbation during pregnancy has greater risks to fetuses to have mental illnesses far more than smoking, I'll sell my possessions and give to the poor.
Smoking is harmful to the environment. The release of semen into toilet bowls or trash cans may be harmful, but it's no more harmful than sex is. There are zones for smoking, but there aren't any signs in bathrooms or airplanes that say "no masturbating". Airplanes have smoke detectors, but they don't have semen detectors.
Generally, people are significantly more concerned when hearing of a 12-year old boy who smokes but not of one who masturbates. Generally, cigarettes are not allowed to be sold to minors while babies have been reported to stimulate their genitals instinctively.
Tell me honestly, would you rather have a smoking addiction or a masturbation addiction? If you were a parent and hypothetically had to choose between having any of your kids with a masturbation addiction and any with a smoking addiction, you would choose masturbation. It hasn't been shown to have high risk of cancer or organ damage compared to smoking.
We don't hear news about masturbation addicted husbands beating their wives and children but we do hear news about (legal) drug addicted husbands beating their wives and children.
You can't donate blood if you've masturbated in the last day, but you can donate blood if you've smoked :D
When you are hospitalized, doctors don't care if you do or used to masturbate. But they do care if you do or used to smoke.
Smoking appears to be worse than masturbation as smoking is something that has been invented by humans while masturbation has been done since before humans evolved
-- This is a logically invalid statement. Brick buildings were invented by humans, volcanoes are natural. Does that mean it's safer to walk into a volcano than a brick building?