Is It Ever Okay For A Minor To Consume Alcohol?

[CatholicCid]

+Darn you sticky reply button+

Edited October 16, 2007 by CatholicCid

[Aloysius]

who said anything about fighting and dying? I just suggest disregarding that law when you're in a situation when you can responsibly enjoy alcohol.

[Aloysius]

"CCC1902 Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a "moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility"

A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence."

Here's a closed thread which went through a lot of this: [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=44313&st=40"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...44313&st=40[/url]

The last two pages are irrelevant, and the little incident between myself and other moderators was a staged April geniuses Day event. haha. remember that everybody?

[PapaHilarious]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1403365' date='Oct 15 2007, 09:17 PM']Agreed. This seems to contradict your other statements, so I'm a little confused as to where you stand on this issue.

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 which is central to your culture and tradition because it thinks it knows what is best for you, you are not obliged to obey.[/quote]

Who says the state does not have authority over your diet? You just saying it is unjust does not make it unjust. You wanting to drive 200 miles an hour does not make it okay. You giving cigars to a 12 year old is all wrong, too. None of these, including alcohol, are laws that FORBID but laws the REGULATE for safety. Implying that this is some infringement on your culture is quite a stretch. Pretty much everyone on this forum was born into a world where there were restrictions on controlled substances. That [i]is[/i] our culture.

Again about the Roman law... the law was for 1 mile, that was the maximum a Centurion was supposed to ask for. This was convenient because they pegged mile-markers (not an exact mile like we measure today, of course). As anyone can imagine, it was one of many huge sources of contention in Palestine. (Remember how much they hated the census and the taxing? Not much different.)

Let's quote the section first to aid our discussion:

[quote][38] "You have heard that it was said, `An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'
[39] But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also;[/quote]

We know Jesus meant this first part literally because He emphasized non-resistance in other passages, particularly with Peter striking the servant.

[quote][40] and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well;[/quote]

This passage certainly seems to be figurative if taken by itself, in that it could just be a message about generosity. However, St. Paul seems to take it in a very literal sense when he says in I Cor 6:7 "To have lawsuits at all with one another is defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?"

[quote][41] [b]and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.[/b][/quote]

As already established by discussing the history of Roman law, this verse would strike an immediate [u]literal[/u] cord with the audience in Palestine. However, to work with your theory that Jesus's message is to be generous and work hard...Would such an interpretation in any way negate the literal meaning of what he's saying? It doesn't. To the audience in Christ's day, there was nothing hypothetical about being forced to go a mile. The Jews lived that day in and day out.

To make such a claim as you are making, you should really offer some evidence as to why these words would speak to generosity and hard work and not obedience and submission, as the historical context renders plain.


...

At the end of the day, whether we are talking about passage on the Eucharist or the [i]keys to the kingdom[/i] or [i]going the extra mile[/i], the most important thing to do first is put ourselves in the time of Jesus and ask what the initial audience would have thought. So what [i]would[/i] the audience at the Sermon on the Mount have thought about Jesus saying to walk more than necessary to help a Roman soldier? It would have been a tough, tough message to hear. And I'm sure like in John 6, many simply could not accept it.

Edited October 16, 2007 by PapaHilarious

[hyperdulia again]

"Who says the state does not have authority over your diet?"

[CatholicCid]

Aloysius,

So you would say that any age limit to alcohol consumption "falls short of right reason"?
Could not an argument be made that the government would enact such a law to act for the common good, especially as it is an age limit law.
I suppose, if we were in prohibition times, this would seem more clear to me. However, as an age limit is being used, not complete removal of alcohol from society, I suppose I just don't understand what is really meant by "right reason" in this argument.

God Bless.

Edited October 16, 2007 by CatholicCid

[PapaHilarious]

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1403411' date='Oct 15 2007, 10:08 PM']So you would say that any age limit to alcohol consumption "falls short of right reason"?
Could not an argument be made that the government would enact such a law to act for the common good, especially as it is an age limit law.[/quote]

Point well taken.

Indeed such an argument has been made - that it is safer for individuals and the general public in today's society to restrict alcohol to those of a more mature age - which is the reasoning for our country's restrictions.

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='PapaHilarious' post='1403429' date='Oct 15 2007, 11:18 PM']Point well taken.

Indeed such an argument has been made - that it is safer for individuals and the general public in today's society to restrict alcohol to those of a more mature age - which is the reasoning for our country's restrictions.[/quote]

PapaHilarious,

Yes, that's what I was thinking, especially in accordance with CCC 1909

"Finally, the common good requires peace, that is, the stability and security of a just order. It presupposes that authority should ensure by morally acceptable means the security of society and its members. It is the basis of the right to legitimate personal and collective defense."

Of course, applying this in such a situation might considered a stretch. However, could not "authority should ensure... the security of society" be applied to security from people society might see as too immature to consume alcohol. An age limit would seem to be morally acceptable to me. I could be misinterpreting it though.

God Bless.

Edited October 16, 2007 by CatholicCid

[Aloysius]

I do argue that an age limit on alcohol falls short of right reason, because it causes really bad attitudes about alcohol which lead to excessive drinking et cetera. Puritanism breeds paganism; and what the state is asking our children to do is grow up puritanically up until the age of 21, and then have alcohol. To live in a puritanical attitude towards alcohol technically, which makes them want to sneak away and have a pagan experience of drinking in secret.

Having authority over our diet? The FDA acceptably may have acceptable authority to make sure all food offered to the market is safe (though, I do have problems with the extent of the FDA's authority, that is irrelevant to the discussion right now...). But that's it, they cannot make laws that regulate anyone's diet, and if they attempted to, I would not follow that law. If they tried to enforce the food pyramid, for example, as something that children had to follow in their diet, I would disregard that law as outside of their proper authority.

Drinking alcohol from childhood to adulthood is a part of Mediteranean cultures, Irish cultures, basically Catholic culture. In fact, disregarding laws of government regulation of alcohol is pretty much a staple of American Catholic culture

Again, Jesus is NOT making a point about obedience to the law, but about non-resistance. The context of the statement includes those Roman soldiers in the same breath as thieves. Unless you are saying that he is making a point about obeying thieves, this is not about obedience but about non-resistance to those who would do immoral things to you.

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1403537' date='Oct 16 2007, 09:05 AM']I do argue that an age limit on alcohol falls short of right reason, because it causes really bad attitudes about alcohol which lead to excessive drinking et cetera. Puritanism breeds paganism; and what the state is asking our children to do is grow up puritanically up until the age of 21, and then have alcohol. To live in a puritanical attitude towards alcohol technically, which makes them want to sneak away and have a pagan experience of drinking in secret.

Having authority over our diet? The FDA acceptably may have acceptable authority to make sure all food offered to the market is safe (though, I do have problems with the extent of the FDA's authority, that is irrelevant to the discussion right now...). But that's it, they cannot make laws that regulate anyone's diet, and if they attempted to, I would not follow that law. If they tried to enforce the food pyramid, for example, as something that children had to follow in their diet, I would disregard that law as outside of their proper authority.

Drinking alcohol from childhood to adulthood is a part of Mediteranean cultures, Irish cultures, basically Catholic culture. In fact, disregarding laws of government regulation of alcohol is pretty much a staple of American Catholic culture[/quote]

If all states had laws that allow for parent's to provide alcohol bevarages to their own children while in their home and the such, would you still argue this way?
This would allow parent's the right to regulate their children's 'diets' and introduce them into their culture, yet also makes sure that the children are recieving parental supervision while consuming alcohol. I suppose as that differing states <appear to> have different laws regarding this, it is still up in the air, and <theoretically> up to the choice of the people.
Or, should minor's be allowed to legally consume alcohol without their parents knowledge?

I do think your food pyramid example is a good one. I would see it that there is already a somewhat government controlled diet for at least 1 meal, in the public schools. This, of course though, would fall down to a low form of government. However, the parents of the children have the option to provide a lunch of their own choosing to their children. So, if the parents aren't involved, then the children are to have the provided meal, but if the parents are involved they can have their own lunch. (Kind of a weak analogy in a sense I suppose)

I would disagree with your view of the 'puritanical' nature of it as it being too general of a claim. I would think we could be taught moderation, ect... without actually having to consume alcohol.
While it is off-topic, just giving an insight on what I thought when you said that, some people I know would use that logic to try and argue <incorrectly> against the Catholic stance on pre-maritial sex.

Also, what of the government inacting alcohol age laws for the common good? Would this make what seems to be an unjust law just?

As a Catholic American, I would disagree that disregarding alcohol regulation is a stable...
While I might disagree with them, I see no reason to break the law in this case.

God Bless.

Edited October 16, 2007 by CatholicCid

[PapaHilarious]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1403537' date='Oct 16 2007, 08:05 AM']I do argue that an age limit on alcohol falls short of right reason, because it causes really bad attitudes about alcohol which lead to excessive drinking et cetera. Puritanism breeds paganism; and what the state is asking our children to do is grow up puritanically up until the age of 21, and then have alcohol. To live in a puritanical attitude towards alcohol technically, which makes them want to sneak away and have a pagan experience of drinking in secret.

Having authority over our diet? The FDA acceptably may have acceptable authority to make sure all food offered to the market is safe (though, I do have problems with the extent of the FDA's authority, that is irrelevant to the discussion right now...). But that's it, they cannot make laws that regulate anyone's diet, and if they attempted to, I would not follow that law. If they tried to enforce the food pyramid, for example, as something that children had to follow in their diet, I would disregard that law as outside of their proper authority.

Drinking alcohol from childhood to adulthood is a part of Mediteranean cultures, Irish cultures, basically Catholic culture. In fact, disregarding laws of government regulation of alcohol is pretty much a staple of American Catholic culture[/quote]

It's "Puritanism" to have regulations on drugs and alcohol? You realize you're using the EXACT argument that C.S. Lewis refutes in the [i]Screwtape Letters[/i], about how modern culture mockingly labels morality as "puritanical" to justify their behavior. And once again you try to insist that your "Mediteranean" or "Irish" culture or whatever is getting squashed? Did any of those "basically Catholic" cultures have automobiles? Did Aquinas grow up with speeding cars and immature drivers? Nope. You live in a different culture now, with different needs, particularly when it comes to safety.

PLUS, you can drink when you're 21. It's a regulation [u]not a ban[/u]. There is no oppression here. You can't vote till you're 18. You can't drive till you're 16 or 18 (depending on the state). You can't rent a car until you're 21-25. You can't buy a firearm when you're underage. [b]Regulation. Regulation. Regulation.[/b]

[quote]Again, Jesus is NOT making a point about obedience to the law, but about non-resistance. The context of the statement includes those Roman soldiers in the same breath as thieves. Unless you are saying that he is making a point about obeying thieves, this is not about obedience but about non-resistance to those who would do immoral things to you.[/quote]

Since you are normally very eloquent with your posts, I will assume you didn't have much time to reply, because you've offered nothing new here. The burden of proof is on YOU, as someone who wants to disobey the law and the authority of our government. You've shown no evidence from the text to support your theories, which is quite necessary when the historical context renders a literal meaning to be plain.

As I've shown from dissecting Matthew 5, Jesus's audience would have taken his message of submission as a very hard, [u]literal[/u] stance because he used a very [u]literal[/u] example with a situation they were very familiar with. And as we've shown from Corinthians, Paul took even Jesus's message about suing over cloaks to be literal, as well.

NOTE: I've never said anything against the presence of alcohol in our culture. This is not a discussion of prohibition, as others have pointed out. This is a debate about safety [u]regulations[/u].

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='PapaHilarious' post='1403112' date='Oct 15 2007, 10:27 PM']I've heard this implied as well, and I'm all ears to someone documenting such a law. Perhaps it is true, but I've yet to hear anyone prove it, so until then, back to the original discussion... [/quote]

Don't know if this has been listed yet, but [url="http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/StateAndLocalLaws/20070914111947.html"]this link[/url] shows a list of states that do allow underage drinking in certain circumstances (ie: under parental supervision) Even so, there are stipulations that said parents cannot give alcohol to underage friends of their children, even with those parents' permission (at least in KY, don't know about in all states).

[Aloysius]

It's a ban on people under 21 drinking, to those people, it is effective puritanism. As I said, we are asking our children to grow up following a puritanical view of alcohol, which breeds the paganism that they so often fall into in secret.

The fact that we have cars only means that we should have regulations to prevent drunk driving, not all out bans on children drinking alcohol. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater based upon sociological statistics is simply contrary to right reason, we should have policies which deal specifically with bad behaviors, we should not ban overarching behaviors; why? because the more we make them taboo in a puritanical fashion (rather than a dynamic fashion based on the possibility of moderation or abstinence based upon what is best for the individual) the more we cause the opposite extreme.

C.S. Lewis did not have alcohol in mind when talking about people who dismiss morality as being puritanical, because he clearly did not consider alcohol drunk in moderation a moral evil. I am not dismissing morality as being puritanical, I am dismissing arbitrary bans for certain ages of people as being puritanical.

I am simply following that passage in its context; Jesus is there asking for non-resistance and generosity in the form of hyperbole, the soldier in that example is no different, necessarily, than the thief. It's a matter of when someone comes up to you and wants to do something unjust to you, the perfect response is one of generosity and submission, turning the other cheek to those who would strike you. The case of the modern state making overarching laws into your private lives has no relevance to that. I would obey a police officer who was in my presence so long as he did not require me to do something immoral; but when it comes to the far-away state, I have more leeway, I am only obliged to follow, in my private life, those things which the state justly exercises its authority over. It does not have authority over my drinking habits. It certainly would have authority to tell me not to drive drunk, that is within right reason; it certainly would have the authority to tell me to drive safely on its roads, I have no problem obeying those laws.

this is not regulations, this is a ban on people under 21 consuming or possessing alcohol. on legal regulations on the sale of alcohol, I may be more willing to acquiesce, but on outright bans on the CONSUMPTION of alcohol by minors, that is outside of the state's authority.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='PapaHilarious' post='1403344' date='Oct 15 2007, 11:54 PM']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.[/quote]
would "going the extra mile" mean paying extra taxes? Because I don't like the idea of New Jersey getting more than the usual 30% of my salary.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i second Al's view. but, i note that just regulating drunk dodriving instead of drinking may not solve th eproblem. kids might defy the laws, and if they can drink, they are more likely to.
surely, some would die by allowing consumption but not drunk driving, when those kids who consume decide to drive. if the amount is great, obviously in my mind, we should ban consumption too. but if the amount is small to nill, we dont ban consumption.
if it's in the middle, which is probably the reality of the situation, we have to weigh the freedom to drink v. the fact people will die because our laws allow consumption. it's a gray area.
but, i may be wrong as to how mnay would die, and an empiracle study would be beneficial.