drinking alcohol

[Winchester]

Unjust laws needn't be obeyed. However, some of the fall out of drinking illegally was too steep a price to pay and be morally excusable.

The church does support revolution under certain forms of oppression. However, I don't think disallowing consumption of alcohol would qualify. Were communion wine banned, I would say by all means take up arms, but as much as I love Guinness, I don't think I could justify warfare to defend my human right to drink it.

Regardless, I am not convinced we must obey every knee-jerk law having no character of authority. All the quotes point towards "the good" or "justice." It's not simply: there's a law, you must obey it. Tyranny, even petty tyranny, does not command obedience.

[sidemunch88]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Feb 7 2006, 10:34 PM']

[url="http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt2art2.htm"]http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt2art2.htm[/url]
I. Authority

1897
"Human society can be neither well-ordered nor prosperous unless it has some people invested with legitimate authority to preserve its institutions and to devote themselves as far as is necessary to work and care for the good of all."15

By "authority" one means the quality by virtue of which persons or institutions make laws and give orders to men and expect obedience from them.

[right][snapback]879846[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

agreed

[QUOTE]
1898
Every human community needs an authority to govern it.16 The foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary for the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as possible the common good of the society.
[/QUOTE]

agreed

[QUOTE]
1899
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
[/QUOTE]

agreed

[QUOTE]
1900
The duty of obedience requires all to give due honor to authority and to treat those who are charged to exercise it with respect, and, [b]insofar as it is deserved, with gratitude and good-will.[/b]
[/QUOTE]
maybe you missed this one ironmonk

[QUOTE]
1901
If authority belongs to the order established by God, "the choice of the political regime and the appointment of rulers are left to the free decision of the citizens."20

The diversity of political regimes is morally acceptable, provided they serve the legitimate good of the communities that adopt them. Regimes whose nature is contrary to the natural law, to the public order, and to the fundamental rights of persons cannot achieve the common good of the nations on which they have been imposed.
[/QUOTE]


nothing of pertinence here. 1902 on the other hand...
[

QUOTE]1902
Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. [b]It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the [u]common good[/u] as a "moral force based on freedom and a [i]sense of responsibility[/i]":21[/b]

A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. [b]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.[/b]22
[/QUOTE]

This next one is interesting

/QUOTE][QUOTE]
1903
[b]Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned[/b] 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."23
[/QUOTE]
I don't think you read 1903 Ironmonk

[QUOTE]
1904
"It is preferable that each power be balanced by other powers and by other spheres of responsibility which keep it within proper bounds. This is the principle of the ‘rule of law,' in which the law is sovereign and not the arbitrary will of men."24
[/QUOTE]


nothing to do with the subject at hand


[QUOTE]
The duties of citizens
[url="http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2.htm"]http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2.htm[/url]

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, [u]to voice their just criticisms of that which seems harmful to the dignity of persons and to the good of the community.[/u]
[/QUOTE]
[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 [b]common good[/b] require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]
2240
Submission to authority and co-responsibility for th
e common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one's country:[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]
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[/QUOTE]


why did you post this? what does this have to do with [i]anything[/i]


[QUOTE]
[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
The Apostle exhorts us to offer prayers and thanksgiving for kings and all who exercise authority, "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way."47
[/QUOTE]


same question


[QUOTE]2241
The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.[/QUOTE]


...we aren't talking about immigration...


[QUOTE]2242
[b]The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel.[/b] Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."48 "We must obey God rather than men":49

When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the [b]common good;[/b][u] but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority[/u] within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel.50
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]2243
Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.[/QUOTE]

we both know I wasn't talking about armed resistance, so please post what pertains to the subject at hand

(emphasis mine during the quotes)

Ironmonk I am not convinced that you read this. I could have sworn you were posting these in [i]support[/i] of me, not against. The catechism speaks for itself

EDIT: I am having issues with the quote deal.

Edited February 8, 2006 by sidemunch88

[Aloysius]

yep... in my previous discussion with Cam I used those CCC quotes at length to prove that there can be such a thing as a law that does not necessarily require you to do evil but is still not morally obligatory because it is outside of the authority of the state.

not drinking alcohol may not be directly contrary to the moral good, but that doesn't mean the state has the authority or the power to force you not to drink it. that would mean that the state has the authority and power to compel every citizen to do absolutely anything it wanted them to short of sinful behavior. no, the litmust test for whether a law ought to be obeyed is not whether it requires you do do something immoral, but whether it fits the Catechism's definition of a "legitimate excercise of authority"

however: I agree with Winchester in this regard-- the formation of the mafia and organized crime was an evil and supporting this by buying their alcohol would have constituted at least material cooperation with that evil and as such would have been sinful.

But if a man in his private house began brewing beers to drink with his buddies in the basement, that would not have been sinful even if against the law.

[sidemunch88]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Feb 8 2006, 09:38 AM']yep... in my previous discussion with Cam I used those CCC quotes at length to prove that there can be such a thing as a law that does not necessarily require you to do evil but is still not morally obligatory because it is outside of the authority of the state.

not drinking alcohol may not be directly contrary to the moral good, but that doesn't mean the state has the authority or the power to force you not to drink it.  that would mean that the state has the authority and power to compel every citizen to do absolutely anything it wanted them to short of sinful behavior.  no, the litmust test for whether a law ought to be obeyed is not whether it requires you do do something immoral, but whether it fits the Catechism's definition of a "legitimate excercise of authority"

however: I agree with Winchester in this regard-- the formation of the mafia and organized crime was an evil and supporting this by buying their alcohol would have constituted material and formal cooperation with that evil and as such would have been sinful.

But if a man in his private house began brewing beers to drink with his buddies in the basement, that would not have been sinful even if against the law.
[right][snapback]880238[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Alowishus

I previously asked where the government derives the power to decide what we eat and drink, the basics of life. It seems clear to me that it wasn't the will of the people, as evidenced the the repealing of the constitutional amendment. So where oh where did it come from??? The fact is the government overstepped its boundaries and violated our rights.

[Aloysius]

haha I like the phonetic spelling of my name

you do realize I was agreeing with you, right? if not, re-read my post... yes the government does not have the authority to tell us what to eat and drink. it doesn't fall under a "legitimate excercise of authority" as defined by the Catechism.

I'm just agreeing with Winchester that supporting the mafia and organized crime would be wrong. Organized crime was more than just drinking alcohol even though the government told you not to-- it was a lawless organization that didn't feel itself bound to any laws, even the just ones. Supporting the rise of that organization is a material cooperation in evil. Drinking alcohol while it is against the law to do so, however, was not sinful at all.

[sidemunch88]

Alowishus-

Yes, i see you were agreeing. I don't really know why I quoted you.

I agree that supporting the mafia by buying their alcohol would be wrong. but whose fault was it that mafia got into the alcohol industry at that time? The government. If the hadn't outlawed alcohol, then mafia would never been interested.

[Aloysius]

oh yeah, in the long run I think most historians would blame the puritanical teetotalists for causing the inception of organized crime...

[sidemunch88]

[ironmonk]

Your misinterpretation of the Catechism is irrelevant. You should read it slower.

"Not drinking alcohol" does not go against the moral order or the Gospel.

When wine was made back then it was grape juice that was not pasteurized, which means that it fermented naturally. There were varying levels of alcohol in the wine. If the wine was fresh then there would be hardly any alcohol. There is no reason why pasteurized grape juice would not fulfill the blood.

Read the bible a few dozen times, then read the Catechism a few more times, then you might understand it better.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[sidemunch88]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Feb 8 2006, 12:26 PM']Your misinterpretation of the Catechism is irrelevant. You should read it slower.

"Not drinking alcohol" does not go against the moral order or the Gospel.

When wine was made back then it was grape juice that was not pasteurized, which means that it fermented naturally. There were varying levels of alcohol in the wine. If the wine was fresh then there would be hardly any alcohol. There is no reason why pasteurized grape juice  would not fulfill the blood.

Read the bible a few dozen times, then read the Catechism a few more times, then you might understand it better.

God Bless,
ironmonk
[right][snapback]880522[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Hey I'm sorry I haven't read the bible as much as you, or the catechism as much as you. I went through your posts point by point, even the irrelevant ones. And your reply? You just dismiss me because I haven't read the bible as much. Sorry I am not a saint yet. WOW what an intelligent debate. woot woot personally i doubt you even read my post.

[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.