Is It Ever Okay For A Minor To Consume Alcohol?

[hyperdulia again]

I'm not being mean. I'm just sad for you. This is a great community, I'd hate to see you alienate everyone. We'll love you even if you don't believe in God, but basic human decency is a requirement of the place.

[Autumn Dusk]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1402858' date='Oct 15 2007, 01:55 AM']I'm not being mean. I'm just sad for you. This is a great community, I'd hate to see you alienate everyone. We'll love you even if you don't believe in God, but basic human decency is a requirement of the place.[/quote]


Aww cute, human decency a requirement, what a happy little place you have here. I'm glad you haven't met reality yet, its kicker. I'll have to do some soul-searching to see if I fit into your little club. BTW were's my good friend Budge, I miss her.

[XIX]

Erm, you are kinda proving hyper's point with that last post.

[kateri05]

autumn, either start talking about minor's consuming alcohol in a debatey fashion or go start your own thread to be grumpy in.

sheesh!

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='XIX' post='1402871' date='Oct 15 2007, 02:19 AM']Erm, you are kinda proving hyper's point with that last post.[/quote]Exactly.

[Archaeology cat]

As others have said, in your own home, in the company of your parents, it is legal in most states (don't know if it is in all or not). My family started allowing me to have a little wine at dinner around the age of 14, and I've grown up with alcohol being served at all family functions. I never felt there was any great mystique about alcohol, since I had been taught to drink responsibly. But obviously this situation is still well within the law; breaking the law to drink alcohol, isn't really kosher.

Edited October 15, 2007 by Archaeology cat

[photosynthesis]

For the most part, I only drank at family functions until I turned 21. There were a few times I went to parties in college, but I lived in Baltimore, the "Land of Pleasant Living" and all people drank was National Bohemian beer. Life is too short to drink bad beer--it wasn't worth the empty calories.

[Aloysius]

Other threads have dealt with this topic in depth, anyway, my position is that it is indeed an unjust law, because it is outside of the proper authority of the state. The State does not have the authority to regulate my diet (or the diets of minors) or what I drink or do not drink.

Re-read the catechism quotes: an unjust law is not just a law which makes you act contrary to the morality, it is a law which is not within the proper authority of the government.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1402579' date='Oct 14 2007, 09:57 PM']1) the catechism is not infallible.
2) do you accuse the millions of Catholic lay people who joyously disregard the absurd puritanical "drinking laws" of this country of sin?[/quote]


Maybe its only venial. 'Cause I gave Adrienne wine last night.

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1402965' date='Oct 15 2007, 09:22 AM']Other threads have dealt with this topic in depth, anyway, my position is that it is indeed an unjust law, because it is outside of the proper authority of the state. The State does not have the authority to regulate my diet (or the diets of minors) or what I drink or do not drink.

Re-read the catechism quotes: an unjust law is not just a law which makes you act contrary to the morality, it is a law which is not within the proper authority of the government.[/quote]

So, in the end, it'll just break down into an argument on whether or not one believes that state has the authority to set a minimum age for alcohol assumption? That kind of takes the fun out of debating.

Out of curiosity, would controlled illegal drug use and blood/alcohol levels fall into this same type of debate circle?

Edited October 15, 2007 by CatholicCid

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1402965' date='Oct 15 2007, 11:22 AM']Other threads have dealt with this topic in depth, anyway, my position is that it is indeed an unjust law, because it is outside of the proper authority of the state. The State does not have the authority to regulate my diet (or the diets of minors) or what I drink or do not drink.

Re-read the catechism quotes: an unjust law is not just a law which makes you act contrary to the morality, it is a law which is not within the proper authority of the government.[/quote]

I agree, I think it's wrong for the government to impede my ability to pass on my culture to my [future] children.

Did you hear that Mayor Bloomberg of New York City passed a law that banned all restaurants in the 5 boroughs from using any ingredients that contain trans-fats? A lot of businesses suffered because they had a very short period of time to develop trans-fat free recipes. I mean, partially hydrogenated soybean oil tastes disgusting anyway and is horrible for you, but I still don't think it should be banned.

[PapaHilarious]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1402965' date='Oct 15 2007, 08:22 AM']Other threads have dealt with this topic in depth, anyway, my position is that it is indeed an unjust law, because it is outside of the proper authority of the state. The State does not have the authority to regulate my diet (or the diets of minors) or what I drink or do not drink.[/quote]

[i]Unjust[/i] is permitting abortion. We may not like our alcohol laws, but they don't infringe on God-given rights of life. If we're going to start this argument, we might as well say you can't pass "just" laws about any drugs. Alcohol and illicit drugs are controlled substances, in that they have an immediate danger of abuse, hence why the regulations.

There would have been a much better case for the injustice of the Roman laws, such as forbidding the making of weapons, forced taxation (Matt 22), or even quartering and forced assistance to soldiers (Matt 5). But Jesus told us not to resist these laws, and Paul told us to submit to the governing authority (Rom 13), a message that greatly frustrated a prideful people - a people that would ultimately rebel anyway, only to disastrous results.

Unless we're saying that not being able to drink alcohol until 21 is a heavier burden than the cruel subjugation of the Romans that Jesus and Paul told us to accept, then this argument is rather thin.

PS - We live in a world where drunk-driving is a reality and irresponsible teenagers cause a higher percentage of accidents than the eldery, so others drinking is [i]certainly[/i] a communal issue.

[Aloysius]

The Catechism comes out very clear against drugs, so that point is moot.

Again, what a grim world it would be if we had to follow every whim of the government as long as it didn't directly make us do immoral things. This is not what Jesus commanded of us, this is not what the Catechism commands of us.

The catechism is very clear that the government does not have absolute jurisdiction over every aspect of our lives, and that we are only required to follow a just exercise of their authority over things which they have the authority to exercise authority over.

We only have to follow the government when it exercises its authority justly. Your absolutized view of government authority is outside of the tradition of Catholic obedience to authority, IMHO.

UNJUST is exercising authority over something that the state does not have authority over. Daily dietary habits: government doesn't have the authority. What food and drink I want to have or I want my children to grow up on, the state does not have authority over. God has not given them that authority, and there is no authority except from God.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='PapaHilarious' post='1402976' date='Oct 15 2007, 11:56 AM'][i]Unjust[/i] is permitting abortion. We may not like our alcohol laws, but they don't infringe on God-given rights of life. If we're going to start this argument, we might as well say you can't pass "just" laws about any drugs. Alcohol and illicit drugs are controlled substances, in that they have an immediate danger of abuse, hence why the regulations.

There would have been a much better case for the injustice of the Roman laws, such as forbidding the making of weapons, forced taxation (Matt 22), or even quartering and forced assistance to soldiers (Matt 5). But Jesus told us not to resist these laws, and Paul told us to submit to the governing authority (Rom 13), a message that greatly frustrated a prideful people - a people that would ultimately rebel anyway, only to disastrous results.

Unless we're saying that not being able to drink alcohol until 21 is a heavier burden than the cruel subjugation of the Romans that Jesus and Paul told us to accept, then this argument is rather thin.

PS - We live in a world where drunk-driving is a reality and irresponsible teenagers cause a higher percentage of accidents than the eldery, so others drinking is [i]certainly[/i] a communal issue.[/quote]
I think the main cause of teenage drinking problems is the fact that their parents aren't as involved in their lives and don't exercise proper authority. Where I grew up, most teens were spoiled rotten and parents would allow their children to get into bad situations (like going to parties at friends' houses where parents are not present) and then are shocked when their children have car accidents and/or give themselves alcohol poisoning. I usually disagree with everything Hilary Clinton says, but it does take a village to raise a child, and most parents are too busy working for the Man to develop relationships with their children, know who their friends are and build rapport with other parents.

One of my good friends from college was raised Baptist and wasn't allowed to drink until she turned 21. When her parents sent her to La Sorbonne for a semester abroad, they allowed her to drink because it's legal. Unfortunately, she'd never even tasted alcohol and had no idea what her limits were. She ended up having her first glass of wine with a group of students and professors and had a really bad reaction. After making several outlandish statements and uncharitable remarks in front of her professors, she got sick. I'd rather let my child make those kind of mistakes after Uncle so-and-so's funeral than do something scandalous around a college professor in a fancy French restaurant.

It's a lot easier to teach your children good manners early in life than to correct bad habits once they get older. It's like putting the toothpaste back in the tube. When a person turns 21, their college years are over, or they've been working in the world for a few years and may either be married or preparing for it. If they have no foundation, they'll probably end up in the near occasion of sin quite often as they make new friends. Out of concern for my [future] children's souls, I'd rather teach them before they leave home so they know how to keep themselves out of the near occasion of sin. I don't think it makes sense for the government to impede my ability to do what is best for the souls of my children.

Edited October 15, 2007 by photosynthesis

[PapaHilarious]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1403002' date='Oct 15 2007, 10:02 AM']The Catechism comes out very clear against drugs, so that point is moot.

Again, what a grim world it would be if we had to follow every whim of the government as long as it didn't directly make us do immoral things. This is not what Jesus commanded of us, this is not what the Catechism commands of us.

The catechism is very clear that the government does not have absolute jurisdiction over every aspect of our lives, and that we are only required to follow a just exercise of their authority over things which they have the authority to exercise authority over.

We only have to follow the government when it exercises its authority justly. Your absolutized view of government authority is outside of the tradition of Catholic obedience to authority, IMHO.

UNJUST is exercising authority over something that the state does not have authority over. Daily dietary habits: government doesn't have the authority. What food and drink I want to have or I want my children to grow up on, the state does not have authority over. God has not given them that authority, and there is no authority except from God.[/quote]

Well I will have to disagree with your humble opinion, my friend. As will the government and the Bible. You are still ignoring the very specific addresses that I mentioned which were objectively MUCH more serious...paying subjugation taxes and helping enemy soldiers carry equipment?? And we're saying not being able to drink until 21 is worse??? We're not even talking about an outright ban, but rather a mere [i]regulation[/i]! Sheesh. The Romans would have loved you.

As for the Catechism, you are mistaking the absence of a specific address for tolerance, which it is not. The government has authority to govern. We've already established that. This includes things like setting speed limits, taxes, safety regulations, environmental protection laws, etc.

[b]Just because my conscience doesn't have a problem with it, doesn't mean I can start driving my stockcar 200 mph down the highway![/b]

It's legalism to suggest that the Catechism must specifically list all the laws we [i]really[/i] have to follow. That's actually how the Jews in Matthew tried to trick Jesus.

...

So now that we've made this thread the typically ugly debate about trivial things, let's take this a different direction. I do understand where you are coming from with this. It can be a major source of frustration, and it was for me at times in my life before I was 21. It's certainly arguable, as well, that marijuana should be a regulatory category similar to alcohol. That's just the breaks, though. We still have a responsibility to be humble and submit to these laws, even if we don't like it. Ultimately, I think we find it's for our own good, as Christ (and Paul) taught us these lessons so that we find a deeper connection to the holiest of submission that is to God's Will.