Laudate_Dominum Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 [quote name='Aloysius' date='Dec 11 2005, 11:08 PM']well, since food is a good, I personally abandon any terminology that calls it morally neutral. maybe this was Apotheoun that got me thinking this way? I'm so confused, I can't remember. I just remember one time posting a whole big comment about how stuff was morally neutral, and then I got slammed and I was like, ahhh... things are not morally neutral... anything we'd call morally neutral is actually morally good. [right][snapback]821238[/snapback][/right] [/quote] yeah, I think I know the perspective you're getting at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 oh, a good way to lower your risk of heart disease (perhaps the worst killer in our society) is regular moderate consumption of alcohol. I hear wine is the best. God is good. But I guess the best preventative measure might be to avoid food abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted December 12, 2005 Author Share Posted December 12, 2005 [quote name='Era Might' date='Dec 12 2005, 12:53 AM']A) The temperate consumption of alcohol is a great good. B) The drinking age in the United States is aimed at the mollification of immaturity. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a lesser drinking age. C) The temperate consumption of alcohol by an 18 year old, in a private setting, causes no scandal, nor does it exacerbate immaturity in others. D) Hence, although the letter of the civil law is broken, the spirit of the law is not transgressed. The good that comes from the consumption of alcohol is far greater than the keeping of a law which does nothing more than curb a morally acceptable private good. [right][snapback]821208[/snapback][/right] [/quote] My thoughts: A. Temperate consumption of alcohol is acceptable, not a "great good." B. Gee, what does mollification mean? Temperance. Hmmmmm.....thanks for proving my point Era. C. When the mollified law says that 21 is legal age, then consumption by an 18 year old is not temperate. And it can cause scandal, if someone walks into the home. D. I suppose that argument can be applied to every liturgical abuse out there. Actually it has. I have heard every single one of them. (Right Al? "sisters and brothers" being substituted for Fratres and all that....) Notice that your position isn't quite as clear cut as you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 (edited) "A little wine, for thy stomach's sake." St. Paul was trying to get all those beer belly guys off beer and onto wine. That's what he meant by "for thy stomach's sake". Edited December 12, 2005 by Era Might Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted December 12, 2005 Author Share Posted December 12, 2005 [quote name='Aloysius' date='Dec 12 2005, 01:04 AM']I long ago abandoned the notion of something being actually morally neutral... I thought that was you that got me re-thinking that idea? maybe it was JeffCR07... regardless, I know someone on phatmass got me re-thinking whether there actually exists something that could be morally neutral in reality, and I concluded that even if it is useful as a philisophical construct (i.e. killing is moraly neutral, just killing is good, murder is evil), it just doesn't tie down to a discussion of reality. if alcohol can be used for either good or evil, it is morally good. because evil is by definition the twisting of something good. [right][snapback]821231[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Ummm....that would be me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philothea Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 [quote name='Aloysius' date='Dec 11 2005, 11:05 PM']PAGE THREE> GREEN TEXT> CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH [right][snapback]821233[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I saw that. I don't see how it relates. An age limit on drinking alcohol is not despotic or unjust by any stretch of the imagination. It does not limit a person's ability to enjoy a full human life. As we discussed in the other thread, these laws were passed by the legitimate authority elected by the people of this nation, for entirely valid reasons. Would you be sinning by not drinking alcohol at your present age and circumstance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 dang, I imagine heart disease propaganda won't be as effective as the "being violently slain by a crazed drunkard" stuff. It just doesn't have the appeal to the primal fear of a violent death.. oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philothea Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 [quote name='Era Might' date='Dec 11 2005, 11:07 PM']Full disclosure: I do not drink alcohol. My father is an alcoholic, and I don't need the inheritance . My arguments are purely acadamic. As I said, in questions like this, the advice of a Priest is always wise. [right][snapback]821237[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Have you asked your priest about your drinking, Al? : Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted December 12, 2005 Author Share Posted December 12, 2005 [quote]Those quotes from the Catechism are not germaine to the conversation, except for the first which I had quoted earlier.[/quote] there are indeed relevent to the conversation of what types of laws are a legitimate exercise of authority and thus morally obligatory, and they illustrate that the line is not drawn at the point where a law would explicitly make someone contradict the moral law, the line is drawn to say that a law must be for the common good within right reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 just because an argument is often missaplied, doesn't mean it doesn't have any valid use in any situation. [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 12 2005, 12:13 AM']oh, a good way to lower your risk of heart disease (perhaps the worst killer in our society) is regular moderate consumption of alcohol. I hear wine is the best. God is good. But I guess the best preventative measure might be to avoid food abuse. [right][snapback]821248[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I believe we went through that, and that'd be classified as "therapeutic reasons" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 [quote name='philothea' date='Dec 12 2005, 12:18 AM']Have you asked your priest about your drinking, Al? : [right][snapback]821258[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I don't regularly converse with priests. I really will have to get a spiritual director one of these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philothea Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 11 2005, 11:18 PM']dang, I imagine heart disease propaganda won't be as effective as the "being violently slain by a crazed drunkard" stuff. It just doesn't have the appeal to the primal fear of a violent death.. oh well. [right][snapback]821257[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Please don't go there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 [quote name='philothea' date='Dec 12 2005, 12:16 AM']I saw that. I don't see how it relates. An age limit on drinking alcohol is not despotic or unjust by any stretch of the imagination. It does not limit a person's ability to enjoy a full human life. As we discussed in the other thread, these laws were passed by the legitimate authority elected by the people of this nation, for entirely valid reasons. Would you be sinning by not drinking alcohol at your present age and circumstance? [right][snapback]821255[/snapback][/right] [/quote] those quotes illustrate that it is not enough to make it a just law to say that it doesn't force people to sin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 (edited) [quote name='Cam42' date='Dec 12 2005, 01:14 AM']My thoughts: A. Temperate consumption of alcohol is acceptable, not a "great good." B. Gee, what does mollification mean? Temperance. Hmmmmm.....thanks for proving my point Era. C. When the mollified law says that 21 is legal age, then consumption by an 18 year old is not temperate. And it can cause scandal, if someone walks into the home. D. I suppose that argument can be applied to every liturgical abuse out there. Actually it has. I have heard every single one of them. (Right Al? "sisters and brothers" being substituted for Fratres and all that....) Notice that your position isn't quite as clear cut as you think. [right][snapback]821250[/snapback][/right] [/quote] A. I disagree. "What is life to a man who is without wine?" The Scripture calls alcohol the "life" of man. Life is a great good. B/C. We will have to disagree. As the Lord said, the law was made for man, not man for the law. Wine was also made for man, and there is nothing immoral about it. St. Thomas noted that a burdensome law can be disobeyed, absent scandal or grievous wrong. The prohibition of "life" (aka wine), in the private life of responsible adult, is undue. As for scandal, I would not say anyone seeing you consuming alcohol is scandal, but the consideration that they would be grievously scandalized. D. I will disagree about the nature of a Liturgical law and the legal age for alcohol consumption. They are incongruous. But if your conscience says you must follow the letter of the law at all times, do what you feel you must do. Incidentally, the Eastern Churches abide by the principle of oikonomia, the spirit of the law. Canon Law, for example, is a guide, rather than an absolute demand. No, my position, like most moral questions, isn't black and white. Which is why every man must discern difficult questions for himself, with the guidance of the Church, and, as I said, a trusted Priest. Edited December 12, 2005 by Era Might Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Prohibition was an utter failure, and the current under 21 prohibition is equally as absurd. The decrease in alcohol related fatalities began in 1980, whereas the new prohibition really went into effect in 1987 with, to my mind, no discernable effect. The reasons for this decline had nothing to do with the 1987 legislation, but rather were largely the result of educational programs and initiatives, not invasive and oppressive "Jim Crow" laws. And most people don't realize that the transitionary period of the 1980's shows a trend in which states who retained the drinking age of 18 tended to have friendlier statistics than those who had adopted the 21 age limit. But statistics are dubious anyway, especially when they are sociological. The reasons behind them are complex. But let me just say that the statistics card can be played on both sides of this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts