drinking alcohol

[Aloysius]

Actually it is your misinterpretation of the Catechism that is irrelevent.

Oh, and with wine in biblical times: grape juice that was not fermented and thus, in your words "fresh", was likely to be full of bacteria and get you sick. Not exactly fresh. The best wines were the ones with the most amount of alcohol. That's why when Christ changed the water into wine he said to them, "you have saved the best wine for last". the 'best wine', according to their tastes in those times which had been conditioned to consider as better the more fermented wines because you would less likely get sick from them, is one with more alcohol.

The first safe and healthy non-alcoholic grape juice was invented by Thomas B. Welch in 1869.

St. Thomas says drinking alcohol to "hilarity" is not immoral, but drinking to "drunkenness" is a mortal sin. You should read the Summa a few dozen times. Then read it again. You might understand better... Then read the Bible again. Then read some works by GK Chesterton on why puritanism is a plague on society that only breeds paganism, and why teetotalism is completely incongruous with the real spirit of Christianity.

Then remember the words of St. Benedict, ne quid nimis, nothing to excess...and apply that to the following: puritanism, teetotalism, legalism. [b]ne quid nimis[/b]

Then read the Summa again. Then read the Catechism and the Bible again. Oh, and for good measure, you might as well read the dictionary just to make sure you have all the definitions for any word that might come up.

Have I listed enough books to intimidate you into thinking I'm correct yet?

Of course all of this misses the real point, which is that the State is limited in what it can do as a legitimate excercise of authority. The Catechism lists how it is limited, and what the Catechism says is not "anything that does not force the citizens to be immoral"... no, it lists positive requirements that, if they are not met, constitute an illegitimate excercise of authority and thus are not owed moral obligation.

[ironmonk]

Aloysius,
I did not write drinking alcohol was a sin.

If alcohol is outlawed by the authorities, it would be a sin to break the law.

Drinking alcohol is not required to be a good Catholic. Therefore it is not an unjust law or against the moral order.

Also, fermentation actually begins on the vine. I'm aware of how it was made back then, I have pointed it out to many non-Catholics who think drinking alcohol is a sin.

[Aloysius]

I know, but your reply post didn't come accross that way. Actually, I think I heard that fact about Welches from you in the first place.

Anyway, my point is that it is incorrect to say that the law has the authority to make any law it pleases so long as it doesn't require you to do something against Catholic teaching. That is saying that the state has the authority to make you do absolutely anything short of sinning, and that is simply false.


CCC 1903 lays it out. A law is only a legitimate excercise of authority under these conditions:
Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, "authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse."

I believe a law against using alcohol is against the common good of the group. Not only that, but a law against alcohol use on private property, in one's own home, would necessitate completely illicit means to be attained in that it infringes upon the rights of the small imperfect society of the family by controlling it with the perfect society-- whereas the perfect society ought to be subservient to the imperfect society because its perfections only exist to meet need. The state does not have authority over the consumption of alcohol in private homes. The state does not have authority over what its citizens eat and drink... a law which attacks the citizens ability to eat or drink any food (especially a drink so culturally important as alcohol) is not seeking the common good.

[Resurrexi]

here's a quote saying Prohibition was evil:

[quote]Thomas Bonacum, the Catholic Bishop of Lincoln, expressed the views of the Catholic Church on the issue of prohibition in a letter to Governor Ashton C. Shallenberger in 1909. He urged the governor to sign a bill that would limit the number of hours a saloon could sell alcohol to those hours of daylight. He also cautioned against any further legislation that might lead to prohibition. Bonacum viewed the daylight bill as, "eminently wise and salutary" measure that was "calculated to lessen the abuses of the liquor traffic." The Bishop said that the bill made removed "the necessity for any future legislation which might be harmful to the best interest of our commonwealth." In other words, he favored some regulation, but not a total ban on alcohol.[/quote]

now do you believe me?

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 8 2006, 05:28 PM']here's a quote saying Prohibition was evil:
now do you believe me?
[right][snapback]880829[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The text you quoted did not support your statement that prohibition was evil.

[philothea]

I must take part if only to be on the same side as Ironmonk for once!

Anyway, for reference, [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=44349&hl="]here is the last big debate thread[/url] on this topic.

I agree with Ironmonk. You must obey any law that is enacted by legitimate authority, doesn't require you to act immorally, and isn't unjustly onerous.

Prohibition from drinking alcohol does not qualify.

[Aloysius]

well actually, Ironmonk did not include the option of "unjustly eroneous"

but nor did you at first in the last big debate I suppose.... but we ended up agreeing that the notion "as long as it does not force you to do something immoral it is a morally obligatory law" was false. we established, based on the Catechism's definition, that a law is only morally obligatory if 1) it is enacted for the common good 2) it is not unjust or immoral and 3) it is within right reason.

then of course we noted how moral theologians are found all over that spectrum, but that is the principal by which to judge whether a law is morally obligatory.

And you'll find me smokin a pipe at the end of the spectrum that is furthest away from legalism and giving absolute authority to the state.

[sidemunch88]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Feb 8 2006, 01:47 PM']Actually it is your misinterpretation of the Catechism that is irrelevent.
[right][snapback]880654[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

And how praytell, did I misinterpet it?

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Feb 8 2006, 02:16 PM']Drinking alcohol is not required to be a good Catholic. Therefore it is not an unjust law or against the moral order.
[right][snapback]880707[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That is NOT the definition of a just law, Ironmonk.
"Law is an ordinance of [i]reason[/i] for the [b]common good, [/b]promulgated by the one who is in charge of the community" (St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II, 90, 4). (emphasis mine)
Prohibition was not reasonable or for the common good.