Kilroy the Ninja Posted July 29, 2003 Posted July 29, 2003 All this talk about drinking makes me want a sloe sunrise.... (that's your fault Hyper!). I'm afraid I'm on the fence about this one. I'm a firm believer that if you can go to war and die for your country then you should be able to enjoy an alcoholic beverage now and then. Having a beer in the evening or with a meal is innocent enough. But the church does say we are supposed to follow the rules of the governing establishment. However, I think our government's got a screw loose - allowing abortion - so I dunno. Does that make it valid in the Vatican's eyes? Is the Vatican advocating that we should follow the screwed up laws of our country even if it (the Vatican) disagrees with them? I dunno. But I am going to go make that sloe sunrise now... Ciao!
Chrysologus Posted July 29, 2003 Posted July 29, 2003 Now this is interesting. Too conservatives are saying that it's okay to drink if you're under 21. I'm intrigued, and I think that I want to be convinced, but aren't we supposed to obey the laws of the land, Winchester and Don John?
Kilroy the Ninja Posted July 29, 2003 Posted July 29, 2003 Hey! What about me??!!! I'm conservative too!!!!
dUSt Posted July 29, 2003 Posted July 29, 2003 I think I might change my mind on this one... Morality shouldn't be defined by legislation. So... If you were to drink under age, it wouldn't neccesarily be immoral--rather, unlawful. The immoral act is breaking the law, not drinking. So... If you go over the speed limit, you are also breaking the law. It doesn't neccesarily mean that it is immoral. I know a priest that speeds quite often. (you know who you are, hehehe) With that said, I don't think that breaking certain laws would be considered a mortal sin--rather, a minor sin--if any sin at all. If morality was defined by legislation, then we should all be pro-choice.
Joyful Posted July 29, 2003 Posted July 29, 2003 I disagree with using abortion as an example in this case. The legislation in the case of abortion does not make you have an abortion nor does it require you to be pro-choice. The legislation in the case of drinking does require you to not drink if you're underage. Therefore, "If morality was defined by legislation" then we could still choose to be pro-life and, because of that, morally sound. Basically what I'm saying is this: As far as drinking under the age of 21 and abortion goes there are two choices for each: drink or not drink, have an abortion or not have an abortion. Under one set of laws you can only lawfully choose to do one thing (not drink), under the other set of laws you can do either (abortion or no) which gives you the opportunity to be moral. Does that make sense? Anyway, I just disagree with using it as an example... I do agree that the act of drinking in moderation while under the age of 21 is only unlawful (not immoral), but, as dUSt said, being unlawful is immoral so even though drinking under 21 in and of itself isn't immoral, you still shouldn't do it.
basoldier Posted July 29, 2003 Posted July 29, 2003 Sorry, my first post to this phorum, so please forgive me if I accidentally offend. St. Paul in his epistles urges us to restraint for the sake of our weaker brothers (and sisters). As an example, he states when in the presence of a brother coming out of paganism with its sacrifices of meat to idols, when that brother has scruples about eating such meat, it is right to avoid eating such meat, so as not to cause scandal in your brother. The Catechism teaches us about scandal as well: II. Respect for the Dignity of Persons Respect for the souls of others: scandal 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 So it might be a better course of action to not give the appearance of offense by not exercising your moral right to drink in some circumstances when under age, despite having the moral freedom to do so. Pax! Yours in Christ,
Winchester Posted July 29, 2003 Posted July 29, 2003 Chrys, One may perhaps refer to me as conservative, but that doesn't mean I believe all legislation should be followed simply because it exists. I am actually liberal, as I believe the laws of the US should be radically changed. I am Catholic, so the manner of my political liberalism is Catholic.
jasJis Posted July 29, 2003 Posted July 29, 2003 I've just got to voice my opinion. I'm from the era when the drinking age was 18, the same as the age to vote and be drafted. The laws were changed by vote. The question of drinking age came up because of the many problems with 18, 19, & 20 year old drinkers. I, and my friends were drinking then. It was a problem for all of us, but then again, that was only a limited sampling of the entire US population. Underage drinking is not moral. I do not let my kids even sip alcoholic drinks. I was ambivalant about this until discussing this with my wife who was dead set against any underage drinking, though she and her brother grew up being allowed to drink with parental supervision. The rightness or wrongness of the law is not the overreaching point. It's the morality of the law. The question one has to ask is if obeying the law creates a bad moral outcome. The Catechism is also very clear on this. Governments are legitimate powers and serve to maintain order. Catholics are to respect laws to foster social order. Laws can only be broken for the greater moral good. What greater moral good is the result of underage drinking?
cmotherofpirl Posted July 29, 2003 Posted July 29, 2003 When I was in college and had a jewish roommate I celebrated the SAbbath with her. Everybody in the family had a glass of wine with the meal. Every New Years we drink champagne and toast all our dearly departed dead. Is that a sin - hardly . Is it immoral - no. On holidays we serve wine with dinner. On Holy Thursday we celebrate with a seder - lamb, bread and wine. Is it immoral or sinful? Should I stop serving wine on THanksgiving with grandma? Should I tell the Italians, Greeks and Spanish in the family no we can't serve wine with dinner anymore? It is immoral and sinful to go out and get drunk in the streets for the sole purpose of getting wasted. It is illegal in some states to buy alcohol or go in a bar until you are 21. But family get-togethers and holidays hardly are in that category.
electricdisk Posted July 29, 2003 Posted July 29, 2003 I haven't read everyones answer, so sorry if this is duplicated. I live in Texas. I have been told that it is legal for underage kids to drink in restaurants if you are with your parents - kids can drink IN PUBLIC! LEGAL CODE FOLLOWS - From the TABC website Q:When may a minor legally possess an alcoholic beverage? A: While in the course and scope of employment as an employee of a licensee or permittee. Also, if the minor is in the visible presence of an adult parent, guardian, or spouse or other adult to whom he has been committed by a court and if the minor is under the immediate supervision of a commissioned peace officer engaged in enforcing the provisions of this Code. Cool huh?
electricdisk Posted July 29, 2003 Posted July 29, 2003 Sirach Chapter 31 (this is for cmotherofpirl) 27 Wine is very life to man if taken in moderation. Does he really live who lacks the wine which was created for his joy? 28 Joy of heart, good cheer and merriment are wine drunk freely at the proper time. 29 Headache, bitterness and disgrace is wine drunk amid anger and strife. 30 More and more wine is a snare for the fool; it lessens his strength and multiplies his wounds. 31 Rebuke not your neighbor when wine is served, nor put him to shame while he is merry; Use no harsh words with him and distress him not in the presence of others. And finally - Lest we forget.... Jesus' first miracle was to turn water into WINE! Why? Because the guests had drunk all that was available. Jesus in his merciful goodness, - made more wine!!! Hey it was a wedding. A time for celebration!
cmotherofpirl Posted July 29, 2003 Posted July 29, 2003 Yeah Jesus was definitely not drinking grape juice...
benedict_x Posted July 29, 2003 Posted July 29, 2003 Drinking/smoking is legal after 18 here. But you can't drive nor watch a R-rated show till you're 21. How funny is that.
jasJis Posted July 29, 2003 Posted July 29, 2003 The question was about underage drinking for purely social reasons with other college age kids. The question wasn't about drinking as part of family tradition or religious cermony. Again, the question has to be asked, what greater good is accomplished through our act of civil disobedience. Not what little harm there is. Moral code isn't about what you can get away with, it's about right action, regardless of consequence or lack of consequence.
marielapin Posted July 29, 2003 Posted July 29, 2003 The only time I drank underage was when I was 18 and I went to France. When I was in college and I was underage I just didn't drink. It was pretty easy.
BullnaChinaShop Posted July 29, 2003 Posted July 29, 2003 I have no problem with someone under 21 drinking because to me if you are considered an adult by law, can vote, and can be drafted into the military then it is contradictary to say you can't have alcohol when it is a legal substance. I feel that either they need to adjust the drinking age to 18 or raise the voting and draft ages to 21. Either you are an adult by law and have all the rights and responsibilities that come with it or you do not. I believe that to say you are an adult but you can't have something that other adults can is unjust. I didn't have alcohol very often before I was 21 but I have no problem with someone responsibly drinking after they are 18 or even younger if properly supervised by their parents.
Winchester Posted July 29, 2003 Posted July 29, 2003 Drinking underage does not become immoral by government fiat. It matters greatly how one goes about drinking under age, since the idea of the law is to prevent the "problems" associated with underage drinking. If one is moderate in drinking (according to age), one commits no sin.
TempleofVesarius Posted July 29, 2003 Posted July 29, 2003 (edited) CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let me be the first to crack open a Molson Canadian and throw her down in opposition!!!! I'm a very social drinker...my friends and I always have bonfires and few beers and sit around telling stories and playing guitar...are we drunks?...no...are we irresponsable?...no...so what is wrong about it? Morality (believe it or not) 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? And you ever wonder why a law that should be decided by STATE legislature is universally 21 in all 50 states? Lil history for ya...when most states had the legal drinking age at 18 the FEDERAL government threatened to stop funding highways if THE STATES didnt change the law to 21...that is a lil thing i like to call UNCONSTITUTIONAL....just everyone seems to forget that Edited July 29, 2003 by TempleofVesarius
jasJis Posted July 29, 2003 Posted July 29, 2003 None of you have answered the full question. Under what cirmcumstances that a moral good for the whole be promoted by individual acts that undermine the legitmate authority of the Government? It is no more moral than selective anarchy. The evil that is done by underage drinking, encouraging underage drinking, or enabling underage drinking is the diminishment of licit civil authority. The Catechism tells us that we are to be obedient to and supportive of legitimate Government for the greater good of society. Think about what you are saying to other posters here. If you are a parent, and you have control and responsiblity for your children, then you can allow your kids to drink in violation of the law. But if you are telling other minors it's okay to drink, that is shameful. You aren't there to see what other are doing when they drink, especially underage drinkers. How many of you lived in a society as an adult when 18 was the legal drinking age? How many of you know people with drinking problems that developed when they were younger? The level of responsiblity and maturity the average 18 year old is much different than a 21 year old. The fact you can smoke or go see R rated movies is moot. 18 year olds also cannot enter into the same kind of legal contract a 21 year old can. Go try and rent a car. Insurance rates for 18 year olds arent' higher just because they have more disposable income. TOV, What's wrong with underage drinking? It's breaking the Law! When is it morally okay to break the Law? Can you answer that?
TempleofVesarius Posted July 29, 2003 Posted July 29, 2003 (edited) What about when the LAW IS WRONG??? CAN YOU ANSWER THAT???? You cant base you morals on a laws. Laws are made by men and men, at least in my experience with them, are very often wrong. None of you have answered the full question. Under what cirmcumstances that a moral good for the whole be promoted by individual acts that undermine the legitmate authority of the Government? Now the key word there is legitamate... ITS NOT THE GOVERNMENTS LEGITAMATE RIGHT TO TELL ME I CAN OR CANNOT HAVE A BEER********UNLESS IT INTERFERES WITH THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS>>> Guess what...its doesnt interfere with anyone elses rights. Edited July 29, 2003 by TempleofVesarius
Recommended Posts