Is It Ever Okay For A Minor To Consume Alcohol?

[hyperdulia again]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1403312' date='Oct 15 2007, 10:17 PM']"Of course I'm free to pick and choose which laws I'll obey. This government has no authority."[/quote]


Ding ding we got it!

The Church as the repository of all authority secular and religious is a lovely (and as best I can tell unrepudiated) jewel of Medieval theology. Kings were dethroned. Emperors knelt in the snow. I'm sure there is an old thread from Don John of Austria or Winchester somewhere. No authority is an unfortunate word choice--it has de facto authority by virtue of the guns it has pointed at us, but de jure authority remains in the hands of the Papal Monarch.

[hyperdulia again]

Also of interest the Papal letter suppressing the Polish (in Russian Poland) rebels in the 1830's. It has been years since I read it but its primary point was not "Honor your anti-Catholic Government," but "don't rebel they might shoot you."

[Socrates]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1403316' date='Oct 15 2007, 09:21 PM']Ding ding we got it!

The Church as the repository of all authority secular and religious is a lovely (and as best I can tell unrepudiated) jewel of Medieval theology. Kings were dethroned. Emperors knelt in the snow. I'm sure there is an old thread from Don John of Austria or Winchester somewhere. No authority is an unfortunate word choice--it has de facto authority by virtue of the guns it has pointed at us, but de jure authority remains in the hands of the Papal Monarch.[/quote]
Well from the Catechism you've conveniently dismissed:
[quote]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.

2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one's country:
Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.45
[Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners. . . . They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws. . . . So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it.46[/quote]
We can only refuse to obey a civil law if it is indeed contrary to the moral law.

You've provided nothing from the Church to show that we are not obliged to follow civil laws, nor that the American government has no authority at all over its citizens.
The Pope has never declared this to be the case, nor has any competent Church authority.
It is not your place to declare this. You are not Pope. Neither is "Don John" nor "Winchester."

Edited October 16, 2007 by Socrates

[hyperdulia again]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1403329' date='Oct 15 2007, 10:38 PM']Well from the Catechism you've conveniently dismissed:

We can only refuse to obey the civil law unless they are indeed contrary to the moral law.

You've provided nothing from the Church to show that we are not obliged to follow civil laws, nor that the American government has no authority at all over its citizens.
The Pope has never declared this to be the case, nor has any competent Church authority.
It is not your place to declare this. You are not Pope. Neither is "Don John" nor "Winchester."[/quote]

[b]Frankly you are not Pope either Socrates[/b] (or God since you have discerened my motive and judged me guilty). [b]I withdrew the "no authority" statement, it was extreme[/b]. [b]I do not dismiss the Catechism[/b] (there are parts of it that seem irreconcilable to Catholic Tradition--modifying the word "person" with the word "homosexual;" the section on extra ecclesia nulla sallus which seems to suggest that we shouldn't worry about the salvation of Jews and Muslims, some other things; but is largely a trustworthy document). You are right the Popes have never explicitly said that this particular child-murdering, Godless, government is without authority; but it has said that plenty of others are.

If you have cogent proofs to offer I'd be interested in hearing them, attacks on my Catholicity are neither especially interesting nor especially relevant--if I am in error, it is, I assure you, accidental and only waiting clarity from the mouth of the Pope or the Tradition of Christ's Church to end it.

Edited October 16, 2007 by hyperdulia again

[hyperdulia again]

What in the Catechism passages you offered do you expect me to disagree with?

[Aloysius]

You definitely mis-worded that. If we were obligated to follow all laws unless they directly contradicted the moral law, we would live in quite a grim world.

We are obligated to follow all just exercises of authority. Not only when a law is contrary to the moral good, but also when it is outside of the proper authority of the state to make that law, may we disregard that law. Hence we do not become morally obligated to follow frivolous laws that attempt to regulate our day to day lives.

I see this as a matter of diet and culture which is far outside the bounds of any state to regulate. They may have authority to regulate the sale of alcohol, and thus I probably wouldn't sell alcohol to minors if I owned an alcohol shop, but other than that, I do not see the state has having any authority over my dietary decisions.

The example of being put into service for someone for a mile, and instead going for two, has nothing to do with Roman laws, and everything to do with generosity. It is along the same lines of if a thief tries to steal your money, offer him your cloak too.I do not recall the service one actually specifying a soldier, but I suppose modern exegesis might say that there were Roman laws which permitted soldiers to do that. This is all irrelevant, in my opinion, to the discussion of following the law, they were lessons about generosity and service more than obedience, at least the ones you are citing.

[PapaHilarious]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1403329' date='Oct 15 2007, 08:38 PM']Well from the Catechism you've conveniently dismissed:

We can only refuse to obey the civil law unless they are indeed contrary to the moral law.

You've provided nothing from the Church to show that we are not obliged to follow civil laws, nor that the American government has no authority at all over its citizens.
The Pope has never declared this to be the case, nor has any competent Church authority.
It is not your place to declare this. You are not Pope. Neither is "Don John" nor "Winchester."[/quote]


Since people don't seem willing to scroll back, I'll reiterate that Christ said in the Gospel of Matthew to "go the extra mile" (in addition to the [i]rendering unto Caesar[/i] part, of course.)

If the Jews were told by our Lord to obey the Roman law of carrying the equipment of occupying soldiers, then we have no basis whatsoever to think "unjust" laws can stretch into anything like regulations on controlled substances.

And what's more, He didn't even say [i]just[/i] to obey the law, He told them to go [u]beyond[/u] what the authority told them to so that, by our example of obedience, we may be an example of Christ.

Simply not liking a regulation does not make it okay for us to turn a blind eye to our governing authority and use the [i]unjust law[/i] excuse. Killing a baby is unjust. Let's put things in perspective here.

[hyperdulia again]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1403341' date='Oct 15 2007, 10:52 PM']You definitely mis-worded that. If we were obligated to follow all laws unless they directly contradicted the moral law, we would live in quite a grim world.

We are obligated to follow all just exercises of authority. Not only when a law is contrary to the moral good, but also when it is outside of the proper authority of the state to make that law, may we disregard that law. Hence we do not become morally obligated to follow frivolous laws that attempt to regulate our day to day lives.

I see this as a matter of diet and culture which is far outside the bounds of any state to regulate. They may have authority to regulate the sale of alcohol, and thus I probably wouldn't sell alcohol to minors if I owned an alcohol shop, but other than that, I do not see the state has having any authority over my dietary decisions.

The example of being put into service for someone for a mile, and instead going for two, has nothing to do with Roman laws, and everything to do with generosity. It is along the same lines of if a thief tries to steal your money, offer him your cloak too.I do not recall the service one actually specifying a soldier, but I suppose modern exegesis might say that there were Roman laws which permitted soldiers to do that. This is all irrelevant, in my opinion, to the discussion of following the law, they were lessons about generosity and service more than obedience, at least the ones you are citing.[/quote]

*rings bell*

He got it!

[Specter]

I think the irony of this question is that those who are underage are the ones that fight the hardest for the ability to drink by the age of 18. Either that, or they're 20 and find drinking so alluring that they think it's okay to drink even the few days before their birthday.

Guess how I spent my 21st birthday... I worked a junior high lock-in. I haven't drank more than 3 times in my life. MAYBE four. And not once did I have more than a few drinks. It's not that I'm against responsible drinking, by any means. It's that irresponsible drinking has ruined many lives in my family/extended family, and even killed some old friends of mine.

I find it really hard to believe that drinking underage, regardless of the age, is actually worth it.

A lot of people use the line "Jesus drank wine" to justify drinking. But a lot of people seem to ignore the fact that Jesus walked the earth in another age, when things like Sobe, Gatorade and punch were not very common.

[PapaHilarious]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1403341' date='Oct 15 2007, 08:52 PM']We are obligated to follow all just exercises of authority.[/quote]

Agreed. This seems to contradict your other statements, so I'm a little confused as to where you stand on this issue. But anyway...

What makes you think Jesus specifically telling the Jews to follow laws of subjugation does [u]not[/u] support this is odd indeed.

[quote]The example of being put into service for someone for a mile, and instead going for two, has nothing to do with Roman laws, and everything to do with generosity. It is along the same lines of if a thief tries to steal your money, offer him your cloak too. I do not recall the service one actually specifying a soldier, but I suppose modern exegesis might say that there were Roman laws which permitted soldiers to do that. This is all irrelevant, in my opinion, to the discussion of following the law, they were lessons about generosity and service more than obedience, at least the ones you are citing.[/quote]

Roman history does, in fact, show this to be true. The Romans were quite big on laws meant to degrade the subjugated. Jews were required to drop everything if a soldier asked for any assistance, whether quartering or pretty much anything at all. And whether they kept such laws on the books officially meant nothing, because they would do it anyway and it would become the defacto law of the land.

Jesus was [u]very[/u] specific in this reference because He knew how much his audience hated such practices and how much resistance there was. If you try to take the history out of this passage, you miss entirely the emphasis of the message.

[b]It sets a pretty high bar for obedience.[/b]

[Aloysius]

Just because Jesus had no other options does not mean He did not totally enjoy the alcoholic effects of wine, the way His whole culture did. C.S. Lewis answered this question quite well once when he was asked about it by some puritanical Americans; saying that they merely did not understand the culture of the middle east and the Mediterranean, from whence a true Christian cultural attitude towards alcohol came because that was the birthplace of Christianity itself.

Jesus was not talking about obedience to Roman Law, this was a teaching much on the same level as His teaching to be generous even to those who would steal from you.

[hyperdulia again]

There is nothing "just" about the claims of the Modern State.

[Aloysius]

[quote][quote]We are obligated to follow all just exercises of authority.[/quote]


Agreed. This seems to contradict your other statements, so I'm a little confused as to where you stand on this issue.[/quote]

I put this in opposition to the statement "We are obligated to follow any law as long as it does not contradict the moral good"

The former is true, the latter is false. We are not obligated to follow any law so long as it does not contradict the moral good, we are obligated to follow all just exercises of authority. I do not believe laws over the dietary habits of children are just exercises of state authority; they are frivolous.

The state does not have just authority over my dietary practices. If there was some reason listed as why children should not be allowed to eat bananas (not that they're endangered or anything, assume they're as abundant as hops are), say they decided that it was dangerous for children to eat bananas (and assume there was science to back it up), I would still say "the State does not have the just authority to regulate their diets"

When it comes to a soldier coming up to you and demanding service for a mile; you go the extra mile and show your generosity and hard work.

When it comes to an invisible authority claiming that you shouldn't drink a drink in private, with family, or with friends, which is central to your culture and tradition because it thinks it knows what is best for you, you are not obliged to obey.

Specter, When I was about 16 or 17, I argued in favor of obeying the law. For the past few years, I have argued against the justness of the law, and refused to allow it to deprive me of my cultural heritage during this crucial period in my life. I am now 20, and after I am 21 I will continue to argue against the authority of the State to micro-manage individual lives in this way, saying that it is not a just exercise of authority. Jesus and Aquinas both enjoyed the alcoholic effects of wine (and for Aquinas, I am sure, beer as well)... as Aquinas would say, they drank to "hilarity" but not to "drunkenness"... the finest line of distinction in all of the morality of Christendom, if I do say so myself.

[Specter]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1403355' date='Oct 15 2007, 10:09 PM']Just because Jesus had no other options does not mean He did not totally enjoy the alcoholic effects of wine, the way His whole culture did.[/quote]
This, I am sure, was not with drunkenness, which St. Thomas Aquinas also spoke against.

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1403365' date='Oct 15 2007, 10:17 PM']Specter, When I was about 16 or 17, I argued in favor of obeying the law. For the past few years, I have argued against the justness of the law, and refused to allow it to deprive me of my cultural heritage during this crucial period in my life. I am now 20, and after I am 21 I will continue to argue against the authority of the State to micro-manage individual lives in this way, saying that it is not a just exercise of authority. Jesus and Aquinas both enjoyed the alcoholic effects of wine (and for Aquinas, I am sure, beer as well)... as Aquinas would say, they drank to "hilarity" but not to "drunkenness"... the finest line of distinction in all of the morality of Christendom, if I do say so myself.[/quote]
Right, drinking to hilarity is precisely what I'm talking about as fine. But when it comes to age, I'm 26 now, and still remain unconvinced that this particular law is worth fighting and dying for. Anyway...

[CatholicCid]

Aloysius,

Could you quote the specific passage stating we are not obliged to obey what we see as unjust exercises of state authority. I think I'm overlooking/complicating that passage somehow.

God Bless