Should Phat Really Have A Beer Forum?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye' timestamp='1324508905' post='2355463']
Surely one must have at least one day dedicated holy to the lord without a drink of alcohol. but i do get the rest of your post and said a few days a week. i love you guys i feel your warming up to me,and if you hate me sometimes thats ok coz i'm not always right and in need of rebuke,hopefully gentle but firm rebuke
[/quote]
Sunday is a day of rest and rejoicing for the resurrection of our Lord. I see nothing inappropriate about having a drink on that day. In fact Sunday is often the day that I'll have a drink after dinner and wind down a bit.

[Seven77]

The real question is: should a beer forum have Phat? I argue yes, under certain circumstances such as these.

[Amppax]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1324486349' post='2355149']
Haha the beer blessing is from the vocations directory for the Archdiocese of Cincinnati. I knew that I liked him, [b]know[/b] I know why!
[/quote]

i can't spell. derp. *now

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

[quote name='nunsense' timestamp='1324478475' post='2355067']
I think Jesus might have enjoyed a beer if they had refrigeration in His day. He drank wine (and probably red wine at that) but that can be served at room temperature. I only like a beer if it is really cold on a hot day. Otherwise I prefer a glass of wine, or sherry sometimes.

Some Protestants are tee total but the good thing about Catholics is that they have always enjoyed their 'fruit of the vine'. Let's face it, even the Bible says "God made wine to cheer man's heart." And as I said before, if they had cold beer in those days, it might have said "God made beer to cheer man's heart." instead
[/quote]

Hey it's funny how you mention the wine, this is a didya know (i was told this unsure where when or whom so izza supposedly.) didya know that the reason in those times in israel they drank water and wine(and a strong wine i may add) was because the water was so putrid you got really sick if you didn't mix the alcohol with it to kill the bacteria and germs so

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

and also i like that beer blessing, again i'm not against alcohol and i like the bit in the blessing about god gave unto man, alcohol in moderation is an okay recreation due to the fact drugs on the planet are medicinal only and drugs recreationally used supposedly created witch doctors,i heard on ewtn that the word pharmacutical comes from a greek word which meant witches and warlocks but don't take that as a cue that one can go hell for leather on the booze hound st paul did say "drunkardness is evil" and again i illuminate jesus really only okayed getting drunk at the wedding of canna i.e. very special occasions only i assume,also there is a passage in the old testament says "don't drink with drunkards " but i read that after i had already plumited into the spirit of a drunkard whom i started drinking with 3 and a half years ago. But all being good in faith,hope and love i believe god allowed it to happen like he did to job (not that he actually did it,sorry no time to explain.) I had some amount of success on the conversion trail when i would just have a small amount of a drug or alcohol with drug addicts,but now i hope god is gonna show me i can still be around them with no drugs and no alcohol in my system and hopefully i will have even greater success,with the grace of god i fished 4 out of ghenna in my 1st 5 years at church,so remove the drug and the alcohol thats times two hopefully i will get 16 in 15 years if God wills it and i am willing to accept

God bless you all
Jesus iz LORD
God is good,God is LOVE,God saves.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Entheogens for teh win.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

oh i must add pharmecutical iz different coz it is administered by acredited gp's and handed out by accredited pharmicists. Not fool proof am sure but what iz except micahael jacksons coffin under 6ft of cement. But aye alleluia that drugs are better controlled now and we use them medicinally mainly now and not recreationally.

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1324549677' post='2355824']
Entheogens for teh win.
[/quote]

What in gods sea through ocean iz that avatar ?

[Nihil Obstat]

[indent=3.675]
[b] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3150.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3150.htm[/url][/b]

[b] Article 1. Whether drunkenness is a sin?[/b]

[b]Objection 1.[/b] It would seem that drunkenness is not a [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url]. For every [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url] has a corresponding contrary [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url], thus timidity is opposed to daring, and presumption to pusillanimity. But no [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url] is opposed to drunkenness. Therefore drunkenness is not a [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url].
[b]Objection 2.[/b] Further, every [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url] is [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15506a.htm"]voluntary[/url] [[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm"]Augustine[/url], De Vera Relig. xiv]. But no [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm"]man[/url] wishes to be drunk, since no [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm"]man[/url] wishes to be deprived of the use of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12673b.htm"]reason[/url]. Therefore drunkenness is not a[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url].
[b]Objection 3.[/b] Further, whoever [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03459a.htm"]causes[/url] another to [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url], [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sins[/url] himself. Therefore, if drunkenness were a[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url], it would follow that it is a [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url] to ask a man to drink that which makes him drunk, which would seem very hard.
[b]Objection 4.[/b] Further, every [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url] calls for correction. But correction is not applied to drunkards: for[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06780a.htm"]Gregory[/url] [Cf. Canon Denique, dist. 4 where Gratian refers to a letter of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06780a.htm"]St. Gregory[/url] to [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02081a.htm"]St. Augustine of Canterbury[/url]] says that "we must forbear with their ways, lest they become worse if they be compelled to give up the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07099b.htm"]habit[/url]." Therefore drunkenness is not a [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url].
[b]On the contrary,[/b] The [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm"]Apostle[/url] says ([url="http://www.newadvent.org/bible/rom013.htm#verse13"]Romans 13:13[/url]): "Not in rioting and drunkenness."
[b]I answer that,[/b] Drunkenness may be understood in two ways. First, it may signify the defect itself of a man resulting from his drinking much wine, the consequence being that he loses the use of[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12673b.htm"]reason[/url]. On this sense drunkenness denotes not a [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url], but a penal defect resulting from a fault. Secondly, drunkenness may denote the act by which a man incurs this defect. This act may [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03459a.htm"]cause[/url]drunkenness in two ways. On one way, through the wine being too strong, without the drinker being cognizant of this: and in this way too, drunkenness may occur without [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url], especially if it is not through his negligence, and thus we [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm"]believe[/url] that [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11088a.htm"]Noah[/url] was made drunk as related in [url="http://www.newadvent.org/bible/gen009.htm"]Genesis 9[/url]. On another way drunkenness may result from inordinate [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04208a.htm"]concupiscence[/url] and use of wine: in this way it is accounted a [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url], and is comprised under [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06590a.htm"]gluttony[/url] as a [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14210a.htm"]species[/url] under its genus. For [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06590a.htm"]gluttony[/url] is divided into "surfeiting [[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05140a.htm"]Douay[/url]:,'rioting'] and drunkenness," which are forbidden by the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm"]Apostle[/url]([url="http://www.newadvent.org/bible/rom013.htm#verse13"]Romans 13:13[/url]).
[b]Reply to Objection 1.[/b] As the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01713a.htm"]Philosopher[/url] says (Ethic. iii, 11), insensibility which is opposed to[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14481a.htm"]temperance[/url] "is not very common," so that like its [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14210a.htm"]species[/url] which are opposed to the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14210a.htm"]species[/url] of intemperance it has no name. Hence the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15403c.htm"]vice[/url] opposed to drunkenness is unnamed; and yet if a man were knowingly to abstain from wine to the extent of molesting [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm"]nature[/url] grievously, he would not be free from [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url].
[b]Reply to Objection 2.[/b] This objection regards the resulting defect which is involuntary: whereas immoderate use of wine is [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15506a.htm"]voluntary[/url], and it is in this that the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url] consists.
[b]Reply to Objection 3.[/b] Even as he that is drunk is excused if he [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm"]knows[/url] not the strength of the wine, so too is he that invites another to drink excused from [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url], if he be unaware that the drinker is the kind of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm"]person[/url] to be made drunk by the drink offered. But if [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm"]ignorance[/url] be lacking neither is excused from [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url].
[b]Reply to Objection 4.[/b] Sometimes the correction of a sinner is to be foregone, as stated above (Question 33, Article 6). Hence [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm"]Augustine[/url] says in a letter (Ad Aurel. Episc. Ep. xxii), "Meseems, such things are cured not by bitterness, severity, harshness, but by teaching rather than commanding, by advice rather than threats. Such is the course to be followed with the majority of sinners: few are they whose [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sins[/url] should be treated with severity."
[b] Article 2. Whether drunkenness is a mortal sin?[/b]

[b]Objection 1.[/b] It would seem that drunkenness is not a mortal [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url]. For [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm"]Augustine[/url] says in a sermon on[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm"]Purgatory[/url] [Serm. civ in the Appendix to [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm"]St. Augustine's[/url] works] that "drunkenness if indulged in assiduously, is a mortal [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url]." Now assiduity denotes a circumstance which does not change the[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14210a.htm"]species[/url] of a [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url]; so that it cannot aggravate a [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08004a.htm"]infinitely[/url], and make a mortal [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url] of a venial [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url], as shown above (I-II, 88, 5). Therefore if drunkenness is not a mortal [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url] for some other reason, neither is it for this.
[b]Objection 2.[/b] Further, [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm"]Augustine[/url] says [Serm. civ in the Appendix to [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm"]St. Augustine's[/url] works]: "Whenever a man takes more meat and drink than is [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm"]necessary[/url], he should [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm"]know[/url] that this is one of the lesser [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sins[/url]." Now the lesser [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sins[/url] are called venial. Therefore drunkenness, which is [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03459a.htm"]caused[/url] by immoderate drink, is a venial [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url].
[b]Objection 3.[/b] Further, no mortal [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url] should be committed on the score of medicine. Now some drink too much at the advice of the physician, that they may be purged by vomiting; and from this excessive drink drunkenness ensues. Therefore drunkenness is not a mortal [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url].
[b]On the contrary,[/b] We read in the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03279a.htm"]Canons of the Apostles[/url] (Can. xli, xlii): "A [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm"]bishop[/url], [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12406a.htm"]priest[/url] or [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04647c.htm"]deacon[/url]who is given to drunkenness or gambling, or incites others thereto, must either cease or bedeposed; a [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14320a.htm"]subdeacon[/url], reader or precentor who does these things must either give them up or be[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm"]excommunicated[/url]; the same applies to the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08748a.htm"]laity[/url]." Now such punishments are not inflicted save for mortal [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sins[/url]. Therefore drunkenness is a mortal [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url].
[b]I answer that,[/b] The [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url] of drunkenness, as stated in the foregoing Article, consists in the immoderate use and [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04208a.htm"]concupiscence[/url] of wine. Now this may happen to a man in three ways. First, so that he [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm"]knows[/url] not the drink to be immoderate and intoxicating: and then drunkenness may be without [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url], as stated above ([url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3150.htm#1"]Article 1[/url]). Secondly, so that he perceives the drink to be immoderate, but without [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm"]knowing[/url] it to be intoxicating, and then drunkenness may involve a venial [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url]. Thirdly, it may happen that a man is well aware that the drink is immoderate and intoxicating, and yet he would rather be drunk than abstain from drink. Such a man is a drunkard properly speaking, because morals take their [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14210a.htm"]species[/url] not from things that occur [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01096c.htm"]accidentally[/url] and beside the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08069b.htm"]intention[/url], but from that which is directly intended. On this way drunkenness is a mortal [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url], because then a man willingly and knowingly deprives himself of the use of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12673b.htm"]reason[/url], whereby he performs [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15472a.htm"]virtuous[/url][url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01115a.htm"]deeds[/url] and avoids [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url], and thus he [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sins[/url] mortally by running the risk of falling into [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url]. For [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01383c.htm"]Ambrose[/url]says (De Patriarch. [De Abraham i.]): "We learn that we should shun drunkenness, which prevents us from avoiding grievous [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sins[/url]. For the things we avoid when sober, we unknowingly commit through drunkenness." Therefore drunkenness, properly speaking, is a mortal [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url].
[b]Reply to Objection 1.[/b] Assiduity makes drunkenness a mortal [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url], not on account of the mere repetition of the act, but because it is impossible for a man to become drunk assiduously, without exposing himself to drunkenness knowingly and willingly, since he has many times experienced the strength of wine and his own liability to drunkenness.
[b]Reply to Objection 2.[/b] To take more meat or drink than is [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm"]necessary[/url] belongs to the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15403c.htm"]vice[/url] of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06590a.htm"]gluttony[/url], which is not always a mortal [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url]: but knowingly to take too much drink to the point of being drunk, is a mortal [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url]. Hence [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm"]Augustine[/url] says (Confess. x, 31): "Drunkenness is far from me: Thou wilt have mercy, that it come not near me. But full feeding sometimes hath crept upon Thy servant."
[b]Reply to Objection 3.[/b] As stated above (Question 141, Article 6), meat and drink should be moderate in accordance with the demands of the body's health. Wherefore, just as it happens sometimes that the meat and drink which are moderate for a healthy [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm"]man[/url] are immoderate for a sick[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm"]man[/url], so too it may happen conversely, that what is excessive for a healthy [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm"]man[/url] is moderate for one that is ailing. On this way when a man eats or drinks much at the physician's advice in order to provoke vomiting, he is not to be deemed to have taken excessive meat or drink. There is, however, no need for intoxicating drink in order to procure vomiting, since this is [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03459a.htm"]caused[/url] by drinking lukewarm water: wherefore this is no sufficient [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03459a.htm"]cause[/url] for excusing a man from drunkenness.
[b] Article 3. Whether drunkenness is the gravest of sins?[/b]

[b]Objection 1.[/b] It would seem that drunkenness is the gravest of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sins[/url]. For [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08452b.htm"]Chrysostom[/url] says (Hom. lviii in Matth.) that "nothing gains the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm"]devil's[/url] favor so much as drunkenness and [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09438a.htm"]lust[/url], the mother of all the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15403c.htm"]vices[/url]." And it is written in the Decretals (Dist. xxxv, can. Ante omnia): "Drunkenness, more than anything else, is to be avoided by the clergy, for it foments and fosters all the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15403c.htm"]vices[/url]."
[b]Objection 2.[/b] Further, from the very fact that a thing excludes the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06636b.htm"]good[/url] of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12673b.htm"]reason[/url], it is a [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url]. Now this is especially the effect of drunkenness. Therefore drunkenness is the greatest of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sins[/url].
[b]Objection 3.[/b] Further, the gravity of a [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url] is shown by the gravity of its punishment. Now seeminglydrunkenness is punished most severely; for [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01383c.htm"]Ambrose[/url] says [De Elia et de Jejunio v] that "there would be no slavery, were there no drunkards." Therefore drunkenness is the greatest of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sins[/url].
[b]On the contrary,[/b] According to [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06780a.htm"]Gregory[/url] (Moral. xxxiii, 12), [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14220b.htm"]spiritual[/url] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15403c.htm"]vices[/url] are greater than carnal[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15403c.htm"]vices[/url]. Now drunkenness is one of the carnal [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15403c.htm"]vices[/url]. Therefore it is not the greatest of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sins[/url].
[b]I answer that,[/b] A thing is said to be [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm"]evil[/url] because it removes a [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06636b.htm"]good[/url]. Wherefore the greater the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06636b.htm"]good[/url]removed by an [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm"]evil[/url], the graver the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm"]evil[/url]. Now it is evident that a Divine [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06636b.htm"]good[/url] is greater than a[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm"]human[/url] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06636b.htm"]good[/url]. Wherefore the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sins[/url] that are directly against [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm"]God[/url] are graver than the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url] ofdrunkenness, which is directly opposed to the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06636b.htm"]good[/url] of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm"]human[/url] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12673b.htm"]reason[/url].
[b]Reply to Objection 1.[/b] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm"]Man[/url] is most prone to [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sins[/url] of intemperance, because such like [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04208a.htm"]concupiscences[/url]and pleasures are connatural to us, and for this reason these [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sins[/url] are said to find greatest favor with the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm"]devil[/url], not for being graver than other [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sins[/url], but because they occur more frequently among men.
[b]Reply to Objection 2.[/b] The [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06636b.htm"]good[/url] of reason is hindered in two ways: in one way by that which is contrary to [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12673b.htm"]reason[/url], in another by that which takes away the use of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12673b.htm"]reason[/url]. Now that which is contrary to [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12673b.htm"]reason[/url] has more the character of an [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm"]evil[/url], than that which takes away the use of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12673b.htm"]reason[/url]for a time, since the use of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12673b.htm"]reason[/url], which is taken away by drunkenness, may be either [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06636b.htm"]good[/url] or[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm"]evil[/url], whereas the goods of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15472a.htm"]virtue[/url], which are taken away by things that are contrary to [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12673b.htm"]reason[/url], are always [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06636b.htm"]good[/url].
[b]Reply to Objection 3.[/b] Drunkenness was the occasional [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03459a.htm"]cause[/url] of slavery, in so far as Cham brought the curse of slavery on to his descendants, for having laughed at his father when the latter was made drunk. But slavery was not the direct punishment of drunkenness.
[b] Article 4. Whether drunkenness excuses from sin?[/b]

[b]Objection 1.[/b] It would seem that drunkenness does not excuse from [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url]. For the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01713a.htm"]Philosopher[/url] says (Ethic. iii, 5) that "the drunkard deserves double punishment." Therefore drunkenness aggravates a[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url] instead of excusing from it.
[b]Objection 2.[/b] Further, one [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url] does not excuse another, but increases it. Now drunkenness is a [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url]. Therefore it is not an excuse for [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url].
[b]Objection 3.[/b] Further, the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01713a.htm"]Philosopher[/url] says (Ethic. vii, 3) that just as [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm"]man's[/url] reason is tied bydrunkenness, so is it by [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04208a.htm"]concupiscence[/url]. But [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04208a.htm"]concupiscence[/url] is not an excuse for [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url]: neither therefore is drunkenness.
[b]On the contrary,[/b] According to [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm"]Augustine[/url] (Contra Faust. xxii, 43), Lot was to be excused from [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07717a.htm"]incest[/url]on account of drunkenness.
[b]I answer that,[/b] Two things are to be observed in drunkenness, as stated above ([url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3150.htm#1"]Article 1[/url]), namely the resulting defect and the preceding act. on the part of the resulting defect whereby the use of[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12673b.htm"]reason[/url] is fettered, drunkenness may be an excuse for [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url], in so far as it [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03459a.htm"]causes[/url] an act to be involuntary through [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm"]ignorance[/url]. But on the part of the preceding act, a distinction would seem[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm"]necessary[/url]; because, if the drunkenness that results from that act be without [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url], the subsequent [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url]is entirely excused from fault, as perhaps in the case of Lot. If, however, the preceding act was[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sinful[/url], the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm"]person[/url] is not altogether excused from the subsequent [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url], because the latter is rendered[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15506a.htm"]voluntary[/url] through the voluntariness of the preceding act, inasmuch as it was through doing something unlawful that he fell into the subsequent [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url]. Nevertheless, the resulting [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url] is diminished, even as the character of voluntariness is diminished. Wherefore [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm"]Augustine[/url] says (Contra Faust. xxii, 44) that "Lot's guilt is to be measured, not by the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07717a.htm"]incest[/url], but by his drunkenness."
[b]Reply to Objection 1.[/b] The [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01713a.htm"]Philosopher[/url] does not say that the drunkard deserves more severe punishment, but that he deserves double punishment for his twofold [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url]. Or we may reply that he is speaking in view of the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09053a.htm"]law[/url] of a certain Pittacus, who, as stated in Polit. ii, 9, ordered "those guilty of assault while drunk to be more severely punished than if they had been sober, because they do wrong in more ways than one." On this, as [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01713a.htm"]Aristotle[/url] observes (Polit. ii, 9), "he seems to have considered the advantage," namely of the prevention of wrong, "rather than the leniency which one should have for drunkards," seeing that they are not in possession of their faculties.
[b]Reply to Objection 2.[/b] Drunkenness may be an excuse for [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url], not in the point of its being itself a[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url], but in the point of the defect that results from it, as stated above.
[b]Reply to Objection 3.[/b] Concupiscence does not altogether fetter the reason, as drunkenness does, unless perchance it be so vehement as to make a man insane. Yet the passion of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04208a.htm"]concupiscence[/url]diminishes [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url], because it is less grievous to [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url] through weakness than through [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07149b.htm"]malice[/url].[/indent][size=2]

[center][size="-2"][i]The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas[/i]
Second and Revised Edition, 1920
Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province
Online Edition Copyright © 2008 by Kevin Knight
[i]Nihil Obstat.[/i] F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol.
[i]Imprimatur.[/i] Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii.
APPROBATIO ORDINIS
[i]Nihil Obstat.[/i] F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L.
[i]Imprimatur.[/i] F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis Angliæ[/size][/center][/size]

[ardillacid]

This thread is abomination

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1324549677' post='2355824']
Entheogens for teh win.
[/quote]

When I first read this, I thoight you wrote "estrogens".

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1324599635' post='2356069']
When I first read this, I thoight you wrote "estrogens".
[/quote]
I'm thankful for estrogen as well, if we were to quibble about it.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye' timestamp='1324509027' post='2355465']
Surely i never said that
[/quote]

Stop calling me Shirley

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='nunsense' timestamp='1324478475' post='2355067']
I think Jesus might have enjoyed a beer if they had refrigeration in His day. He drank wine (and probably red wine at that) but that can be served at room temperature. I only like a beer if it is really cold on a hot day. Otherwise I prefer a glass of wine, or sherry sometimes.

Some Protestants are tee total but the good thing about Catholics is that they have always enjoyed their 'fruit of the vine'. Let's face it, even the Bible says "God made wine to cheer man's heart." And as I said before, if they had cold beer in those days, it might have said "God made beer to cheer man's heart." instead
[/quote]Eh, He might've had beer, too. It's the mark of civilisation.

[Ash Wednesday]

Came here for the beer blessing and the picture of the pope with the beer. Left satisfied.