ironmonk Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 Winchester, My point in my accusation, as with everyone that I have used that accusation with, is the simple... I'm trying to get you to think that maybe your application is wrong. Hoping that it will sink in and you'll think to yourself "yes, the Catholic Church is correct, and I am Catholic, and we obey, we change for Christ" It looks pretty black and white. I wish I was wrong... PLEASE show me how I'm wrong. You don't know what kind of fights this is going to cause in my house. And to throw a wrench in many peoples engines... mp3's Software that we did not pay for pirate software etc.... All a sin. God Bless, Love in Christ & Mary ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 2238 Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts:43 "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution. . . . Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God."44 Their loyal collaboration includes the right, and at times the duty, to voice their just criticisms of that which seems harmful to the dignity of persons and to the good of the community. 2239 It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with the civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom. The love and service of one's country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity. Submission to legitimate authorities and service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community. 2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense. 2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."86 Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep's clothing.87 2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion. Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to "social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible."88 This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger,89 or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values. 2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. "Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!"90 2288 Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the needs of others and the common good. Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in the attainment of living-conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, employment, and social assistance. 2289 If morality requires respect for the life of the body, it does not make it an absolute value. It rejects a neo-pagan notion that tends to promote the cult of the body, to sacrifice everything for it's sake, to idolize physical perfection and success at sports. By its selective preference of the strong over the weak, such a conception can lead to the perversion of human relationships. 2290 The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others' safety on the road, at sea, or in the air. 2526 So called moral permissiveness rests on an erroneous conception of human freedom; the necessary precondition for the development of true freedom is to let oneself be educated in the moral law. Those in charge of education can reasonably be expected to give young people instruction respectful of the truth, the qualities of the heart, and the moral and spiritual dignity of man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest catholic4ever Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 Hey Dude! As long as your responsible, its totally ok. Look at the country that is the capital of Catholicism. Italy has never had such laws of drinking under age (for one thing, they are much more conservative than we are) so maybe that has something to do with it. May God Bless. Be RESPONSIBLE! In Christ through Our Holy Mother Mary, catholic4ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 Hey Dude! As long as your responsible, its totally ok. Look at the country that is the capital of Catholicism. Italy has never had such laws of drinking under age (for one thing, they are much more conservative than we are) so maybe that has something to do with it. May God Bless. Be RESPONSIBLE! In Christ through Our Holy Mother Mary, catholic4ever It is not a matte of personal responsiblity. We also have a responsibility to contribute to the common good by obeying civil authoriteis instead of promoting disobedience. Why? Because that is Catholic teaching: 2238 Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts:43 "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution. . . . Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God." 2239 It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with the civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom. The love and service of one's country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity. Submission to legitimate authorities and service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community. Did you even read the other 8 pages of posts? The reason this has gone on so long is that people don't read what's written or debate what has been refuted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 Jas, At some point, your interpretation is going to have to enter into it. By your own arguments, the intent of the law is to prevent the bad outcomes of underage drinking. The intent of the law is quite evident, I'm not going out on much of a limb, here. I will not blindly follow the laws of a secular government, nor am I obliged to. I will think about them, I will judge them, and being in a democracy, I will not be subject to whims of the moment. Would I allow my child to go to a party with underage drinking without careful thought? Of course not! What if tomorrow, a law came out stating parents could not allow their children to drink at all, even under supervision? Would I then be beholden to follow it? Where are you drawing the line? What if government forbade literacy to those of certain economic classes? Literacy is not a moral good, so would I be obliged, were I in that economic class, to remain illiterate? Iron, You are a master of the condescending apology, I am humbled. I have thought about this. The Church is right. I maintain you are wrong in your application. Like I said, I will read more to make sure, but this is a complex issue of moral theology. The legitimacy of this law lies in its avoidance of the physical evils of under age drinking. Avoid those evils, and you are left with underage drinking, which is not intrinsically evil, and thus you've fulfilled the legitimate part of the law, and anything beyond is not morally compulsory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 All right this is weird yet again I agree with Chrysologus "Wow, this is insane" Ironmonk your argument is utterly ludicrous let’s look at the quote from the catechism ----which I might add is not an infallible document so please stop acting as if it was --- The authority required by the moral order derives from God: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."17 First the Topic sentence of this paragraph clearly establishes what is covered by it, --authority required by the moral order. Neither the Government of the United States or of any individual states can while they tolerate the Murder of Children claim to be protecting the moral order; we needn't mention legal Homosexual sex/ marriage, fornication adultery, pornography, usury, etc. Our Government is most certainly not defending the Moral Order which has derived by God. Thus it has no right Authority. As such, it is not a sin to disobey it, it receives NO Authority from God--- It claims none and in fact has made war not only on God but upon the Notion that Governments gain Authority from God. That being said it really doesn't matter as this Law also has no bearing on the Moral Order, Morality doesn't change because someone in a Capital building said it did. As I said on my first post on this thread until 1969 it was illegal for blacks and whites to marry in Texas. Would it have been a sin for them to do so in defiance of the Law, does the State have the right to say anything about marriage at all? If you answer yes then you embrace a defined Heresy, so how does your little --break the law you sin theory fit in to that---- Another example in Houston from 1992 until 1997 or 98 it was illegal to Pray within 100 feet of an abortion clinic, were those little old ladies who they carted off to jail for standing 50 feet away praying there rosary, sinners? Our Bishop didn't think so, he never once criticized them. Now next sentence, "There is no authority except from God, those that exist have been instituted by God”, well no disagreement there as a matter of fact this line completely destroys your position... The Government of this Country was not instituted by God, on the contrary it was forged by men in bloody battle with the Government that was instituted by God (through his Church); had the rightful king been usurped, yes, but still the government itself had been instituted by the Church and given its authority by God yet our Government was forged in conflict with that Just Authority, so it cannot of inherited what it fought to destroy. So the line which you have so emphasized: "Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment." is really quite irrelevant to this discussion unless you are arguing that we have to obey Britain’s laws regarding drinking, as God has not appointed anyone in our Government nor endowed them with authority? Our government was born through the Power of the Gun and has maintained itself through that power for 227 years, It does this by Claiming that it has Authority from the people------ Government of the people, for the people, by the people---- wow God isn't in there at all. Now as for your --- the Laws of the United States don't violate the Laws of God ----YOU ARE KIDDING RIGHT, see list above. Now Ice princess has got it right---" The immorality of breaking most laws is that they go against Natural Law. Having a beer under the age of 21 breaks a civil law, but in and of itself may not be immoral. Having an alcoholic beverage does nto go against Natural Law. [sic] “Natural law is all that our Government has any possibility of legitimately claiming authority over (even this is quite tenuous at best for the reasons above) as it is important to protect it (the Natural Law) in and of itself. jasJis----- You still have not offered a single social ill that is directly brought by UNDERAGE drinking as opposed to drinking in general--- You gave a list of social ills of drunkenness but none of them were caused by drinking per se and certainly not by underage drinking as adults drink and drive, get VD and everything else you mentioned. So do you have a societal ill or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 Jas, At some point, your interpretation is going to have to enter into it. By your own arguments, the intent of the law is to prevent the bad outcomes of underage drinking. The intent of the law is quite evident, I'm not going out on much of a limb, here. I will not blindly follow the laws of a secular government, nor am I obliged to. I will think about them, I will judge them, and being in a democracy, I will not be subject to whims of the moment. Would I allow my child to go to a party with underage drinking without careful thought? Of course not! What if tomorrow, a law came out stating parents could not allow their children to drink at all, even under supervision? Would I then be beholden to follow it? Where are you drawing the line? What if government forbade literacy to those of certain economic classes? Literacy is not a moral good, so would I be obliged, were I in that economic class, to remain illiterate? The legitimacy of this law lies in its avoidance of the physical evils of under age drinking. Avoid those evils, and you are left with underage drinking, which is not intrinsically evil, and thus you've fulfilled the legitimate part of the law, and anything beyond is not morally compulsory. Excuse me. If there is any logic in your first paragraph, that establishes a reference framework here, you'll have to be a little plainer. I don't have a college education so it must be beyond me. The legitimacy of the law does not lie in it's avoidance of anything. The legitmacy of the law lies in the structure of society that has established a civil authority for governance. That's from the Catechism. Please show me with the Catechism something that refutes that. And I love how Don John is backing away from the Catechism because it isn't an "infallible" document. I'm not sure about that, but if it isn't, I would still put a larger amount of faith in it than a cursery personal judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilroy the Ninja Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 jasJis, Why do you throw up the "not-college-educated" fight? That's just silly and beneath you. And as far as Don John's supposed "cursery [sic] personal judgement", the Catechism is not a council, ex cathedra, and since it's translated into English, certainly up for debate with some phraseology. A catechsim was released after Trent. It does not say precisely what this catechism does. Which one is infallible? They cannot both be. That being said, please refrain from accusing others of "backing away" from arguments and please answer Don's question of precisely what societal ill is caused by UNDERAGE drinking as opposed to drinking in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 Jas, If you view my judgment as cursory, then you may whistle in the ocean. Winchester, Are you saying that Civil law is to be obeyed only to the limits of personally discernened "spirit of intent"? I responded by explaining personal interpretation is unavoidable. The legitimacy of the law does not lie in it's avoidance of anything. The legitmacy of the law lies in the structure of society that has established a civil authority for governance. That's from the Catechism. Legitimate. Legitimate. Legitimate. It is not immoral to drink in moderation. From me: What if tomorrow, a law came out stating parents could not allow their children to drink at all, even under supervision? Would I then be beholden to follow it? Where are you drawing the line? What if government forbade literacy to those of certain economic classes? Literacy is not a moral good, so would I be obliged, were I in that economic class, to remain illiterate? This speaks to one of your earlier assertions. If you've no answer, say so. When I have a Catechism and time, I'll look in it. However, the Catechism is not a comprehensive work on moral theology, and if it's going to be the only document you'll accept, then I'll bow out now and leave you to your contempt for my "cursory" decisions. Your mind is made up, and it's made up from the same sources. My decision is not due to a lack of familiarity with Catholic teaching, it is based upon my training and study of moral theology, and it is made with thought and true belief. Having never drunk alcohol underage, I've no need to assuage any guilt, so that impediment is easily dismissed. I'm too old to break the law now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 jasJis, Why do you throw up the "not-college-educated" fight? That's just silly and beneath you. And as far as Don John's supposed "cursery [sic] personal judgement", the Catechism is not a council, ex cathedra, and since it's translated into English, certainly up for debate with some phraseology. A catechsim was released after Trent. It does not say precisely what this catechism does. Which one is infallible? They cannot both be. That being said, please refrain from accusing others of "backing away" from arguments and please answer Don's question of precisely what societal ill is caused by UNDERAGE drinking as opposed to drinking in general. The 'college degree' remark was said to Winchester. I'm not college educated and I did not see the logic train in his post. What do you want me to say? I'm too stupid, I don't get what you mean? I did provide the evidence about the 'societal ills' of underage drinking on another thread I started. I also stated I am open to contradictory statistics. I am not against responsible adult drinking. I own a 30 year old bottle of Single Malt that's half gone, the last of a bottle of Courversier, assorted Liqours, a 1/4 bottle of Tangeray, and a couple of 10 cervesas in the fridge. Some of the liqour I've had for years, the beer, a few weeks. It doesn't evaporate. I and other adults drink it responsibly. I am against underage drinking as a matter of choice. That's opinion, based on my understanding of scientific evidence. I am against breaking the law for anything than the desire to achieve a higher moral purpose. That's based on my understanding of the Catholic Doctrine, evidenced by the Catechism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 Winchester, It seems you have not read my posts. I had stated nothing to the effect that drinking in moderation is immoral. I had stated nothing to the effect that we cannot have an opinion as to the value of a civil law. Nor had I stated that the Catechism is the only source I'll accept. It is easy to read it on-line. dUSt has a number of links to it in the Reading Room as well as other Chruch Documents. Quote who you want. I'm 42. I know what my drinking abilities and traits are. My personal experiences are not my sole guide. In 42 years, 24 of them of legal drinking age, I've been around plenty of responsible drinkers, many of which were legally underage. I man not be college educated, but I can (and do read) and did quite well during my 12 years of Catholic school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 The Catechism is the official teaching of the Church. EVERYTHING about Morals and Faith in it is INFALLABLE. The authortiative catechism is the one put out by the pope and bishops. It contains mostly only things that have been defined infallibly. Some of the things in it have been defined by the ordinary magisterium (regular popes' encyclicals), which still requires an assent of the will and intellect. The Catechism itself is authorized by the pope in the beginning with an apostolic constitution, and so all the faithful have to abide by the contents. The Catechism can be found online at www.Vatican.va and http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/entiretoc1.htm (http://www.usccb.org) PS. I have it on disk, if someone wants one, email me where to send it... Or I can zip it and email it to ya. God Bless, Love in Christ & Mary ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 (edited) No Iron monk everyhting in the Catachism on Faith and Morals is not infallable, just because the Church is capable of making infallable statements on Faith and Morals, does not mean that everything said by Her on Faith or Morals is infallable. Much of what is in the Catachism is infallable because it has come from an infallable document, however, it is not in and of itself infallable, for example the section on the relations with other religions is not infallable, and infact is contrary to the spiirt,( and possably the letter) of certian infallable documents such as Lateran councils III and IV. This does not mean that the Catachism is not true, or that it is an invalid source, of course it is a valid source, however, quoteing it is not the end all and be all of an arguement, it is not infallable-- period. Furthermore what it says is subject to interpretation, I find it interesting that niether you, nor JasJis has put forth an ARGUEMENT for you position, I have put forth an arguement , Winchester has put forth an arguement, niether one has even been Challenged much less refuted. I Have shown USEING the Catachism that your position is invalid, show how I am wrong, explain to me how our countries government has is legitimate Authority. I think you will not be able to do it, because it has no right authority. I'll be waiting..... Edited July 30, 2003 by Don John of Austria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 Winchester, It seems you have not read my posts. I had stated nothing to the effect that drinking in moderation is immoral. I have read your posts. I've not once accused you of saying drinking in moderation is sinful. I've used that fact as a basis for my argument that breaking the drinking law is not sinful. Me said: The legitimacy of this law lies in its avoidance of the physical evils of under age drinking. Avoid those evils, and you are left with underage drinking, which is not intrinsically evil, and thus you've fulfilled the legitimate part of the law, and anything beyond is not morally compulsory. Nowhere in this quote does I imply you argue that drinking in moderation is sinful. Nowhere in any of my arguments have I implied such. I am mentioning the nature of the act because it has bearing on the legitimacy of the law in its application. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 I'm not completely blind to the point that Jas is making...I disagree with parts of it. As far as the immorality of breaking the law... Morality is based on how the action effects you and others around you. If what we do is done responsibly so that it can hurt no one, then how can it be immoral? Catholic Morality is based on natural law which is part of divine law given us by God. Morality is not based on how actions effects you and others around you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts