Is It Ever Okay For A Minor To Consume Alcohol?

[fides quarens intellectum]

i voted for the homosexuality debate.

[jeffpugh]

Wow, this is a great thread. Lots of good ideas on both sides, here. I'm not versed in American law, so I can't really contribute... oh, and did I mention the same goes for the law in Ontario? (maybe I should look it up)

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1402583' date='Oct 14 2007, 10:02 PM']I'll look for a Church document when I have time. The Catechism just happens to be on my shelf. What is wrong though of the Catechism's summary of this though?

I would consider it disobedience to a just law. What that would fall under, I do not know.
Sacred Music Man, I believe you are correct of Canada... I've always found their laws somewhat odd... You can drink, but you are not allowed to buy it... Same applies for cigarrettes... You can smoke, but you can't buy the smokes until a certain age... Or so my Canadian friends have said.[/quote]
Yes, in Ontario, it's illegal to sell smokes and alcohol to those under 19 (Quebec is 18... and some other provinces). It's for a good reason. Now, I'm sticking to this thread quite a bit because I want to see if I can decide whether to have a sip of wine or something (in good conscience) before My 19th birthday in March. If I wanna cop-out of that one though, I guess I could take a roadtrip to Quebec and pick up some beer at the corner store or something (NB, Ontario has separate stores for Alcohol, one being the Beer Store, affectionately known as the "In and Out" store , and the LCBO). Anyways, back to the Quebec thing: would that be cheating for an 18 year old to go across the border to get a drink (and in a few cases from what I've heard, to get "smashed", though I don't think that would go over well with authorities)?

[quote name='friendofJPII' post='1403148' date='Oct 15 2007, 06:29 PM']I agree w/ photo's comments....and in the ideal Catholic/Christian family, children should be taught how to drink moderately if and when the parents feel it is appropriate. I'm not sure what I would do with my own children because I don't drink at all....not because I believe it is immoral....I just don't like the taste of alcohol. After the age of 14 or 15 I might allow them to have a sip of wine during Holiday dinner, but that's prob it, unless my husband felt they should be exposed more often. However, some children do not have responsible parents, therefore the laws should be kept on the book...I think the fact that it is illegal is a deterrent to some teenagers (maybe, I guess that's debatable[/quote]
This is a good point. Sounds a bit like a culmination of what's been said: the law should apply outside the home, insofar as it is not a party for everyone to get drunk, and the parents responsibly don't let anything get out of hand. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Maybe if "responsible" parents give alcohol discretely. It would be beneficial somewhat.

My humble opinion/commentary. Take it or leave it Folks!

[friendofJPII]

[i][quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1403178' date='Oct 15 2007, 06:03 PM']Wow, this is a great thread. Lots of good ideas on both sides, here. I'm not versed in American law, so I can't really contribute... oh, and did I mention the same goes for the law in Ontario? (maybe I should look it up)
Yes, in Ontario, it's illegal to sell smokes and alcohol to those under 19 (Quebec is 18... and some other provinces). It's for a good reason. Now, I'm sticking to this thread quite a bit because I want to see if I can decide whether to have a sip of wine or something (in good conscience) before My 19th birthday in March. If I wanna cop-out of that one though, I guess I could take a roadtrip to Quebec and pick up some beer at the corner store or something (NB, Ontario has separate stores for Alcohol, one being the Beer Store, affectionately known as the "In and Out" store , and the LCBO). Anyways, back to the Quebec thing: would that be cheating for an 18 year old to go across the border to get a drink (and in a few cases from what I've heard, to get "smashed", though I don't think that would go over well with authorities)?
This is a good point. Sounds a bit like a culmination of what's been said: the law should apply outside the home, insofar as it is not a party for everyone to get drunk, and the parents responsibly don't let anything get out of hand. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Maybe if "responsible" parents give alcohol discretely. It would be beneficial somewhat.[/i]
My humble opinion/commentary. Take it or leave it Folks! [/quote]

I don't think this is really an issue for responsible parents who choose to expose their children to alchohol ocassionally in moderation...... it's not like they would be charged and arrested for it. Perhaps they could be, but I find that highly unlikely... unless the family lives in a ultra-quiet town with absolutely no crime...

[friendofJPII]

maybe i'm slow, but what does irts mean?

Edited October 15, 2007 by friendofJPII

[curtins]

I'm straight edge

No drinking
no smoking
no sex


anyone who wants to lower the age to 18 can just come to my catholic high school where it seems all the rage to get your stomach pumped on a regular basis.....

drink when you're 21. And drink responsibily. Don't drink when you're under age. Dumbest thing you can do.

[jeffpugh]

Yeah, a lot of youth like to get drunk. It's part of the self-destruction of the CoD. I'm "straight edge" too, though some day I'll have a drink. But, in the states, keep the drinking level up above the highschool "kids". Many don't know what's good for em.

[Socrates]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1402551' date='Oct 14 2007, 08:35 PM']Of course I'm free to pick and choose which laws I'll obey. This government has no authority. The Church is the repository of all authority on the earth and I see no indication that it has admitted the U.S. Gov. into some kind of power sharing scheme.
*goes to hide more illegal CATHOLIC aliens*[/quote]


[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1402579' date='Oct 14 2007, 08:57 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]
YOU are not infallible.

Your nonsensical anarchist statement has absolutely no basis in Church teaching.
Christ Himself said "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's."

One can argue about the whether drinking-age laws are just, but the idea that you can just pick-and-choose what laws you wish to obey is contrary to Church teaching.

And, I'm sorry, but if you regard your own personal opinions as a higher authority than the Catechism of the Church, you ain't Catholic.

Edited October 16, 2007 by Socrates

[xTrishaxLynnx]

Note: I haven't read the entire thread so if I'm repeating points that others have already made, please forgive me...

To answer the question directly: Yes, I do believe it's okay for minors to consume alcohol if under the supervision of parents (or close relatives who are of age, with parental permission.)

Why?

Because I think that some of the appeal that teens find in drinking, especially excessively, is in the fact that it's "forbidden." IMO, if there wasn't so much taboo surrounding alcohol, and if parents, instead of trying to keep their children away from it, had it in their homes and taught them about drinking responsibly, there would be, overall, a lot less problems with it. And if they were going to drink outside of the home (which I don't condone, but it happens) I think they would be more likely to call for a ride if they didnt have a designated driver, for whatever reason. I realize that even lots of adults drink and drive, but I would think it's more common with people who are underage because they are actually[i] afraid [/i]to call someone for a ride, thinking more about being in loads of trouble with their parents than about the chances of them wrecking their car or some other property, getting into trouble with the law, or worse... being killed and/or killing someone else.

Edited October 16, 2007 by xTrishaxLynnx

[Socrates]

To get back on track, while I can see both sides to this debate, I really don't think underage drinking laws should be that big of a concern to the Catholic.
Now anyone familiar with my posts knows I'm not a big-government nanny-state guy, but I think drinking age laws can be legit. And I think there are many much worse cases of government abuse to worry about first.
In practice, almost no one gets arrested for serving a glass of wine to their 16-year-old at a private family meal, or for letting their kid recieve Communion.
The enforcement of the law mostly involves public events, where the public common good is affected. Unfortunately, there is the real problem of adults (sometimes parents) hosting these drunken orgies for teenaged kids, which can have serious consequences (including people getting killed in accidents). Somebody should bear the responsibility here.
Maybe if we lived in an ideal society where everybody taught responsiblity, this wouldn't be an issue. But the truth is that many people (both teens and adults) are not repsonsible, and where their irresponsibility creates a public hazard, the law is in its rights to deal with this.

Of course the legal age for anything will be somewhat arbitrary. For instance, there are probably plenty of 12-year-olds capable of responsible driving, while some 30-year-olds probably have no business behind the wheel of a vehicle. However, we have legal driving ages. Simply allowing anyone of any age to drive on public roads would create a public hazard.

[hyperdulia again]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1403256' date='Oct 15 2007, 09:18 PM']YOU are not infallible.

Your nonsensical anarchist statement has absolutely no basis in Church teaching.
Christ Himself said "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's."

One can argue about the whether drinking-age laws are just, but the idea that you can just pick-and-choose what laws you wish to obey is contrary to Church teaching.

And, I'm sorry, but if you regard your own personal opinions as a higher authority than the Catechism of the Church, you ain't Catholic.[/quote]


Oh my aren't we passionate. I am most certainly free to, working within the Church's tradition, decide what is right and wrong (I see no compelling evidence to suggest that the State's disgusting overstepping of its bounds to invade every aspect of modern life is right, if you have some and would like to offer it do so and I'll learn, in any event please don't accuse me of holding opinions I don't hold). You have many awesome qualities I'm certain..but the power to excommunicate me is not one.

The Catechism is wonderful in most respects, but it is not infallible no matter how angry it makes you.

I am getting so good at self control it's crazy!

[jeffpugh]

Socrates has spoken! Great post, man. I agree. Heh, the driving analogy is good. My town is terrible with people just running lights on hap. That's the tip of the iceberg... Anywho, I'm done hijacking.

[hyperdulia again]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1403256' date='Oct 15 2007, 09:18 PM']YOU are not infallible.

Your nonsensical anarchist statement has absolutely no basis in Church teaching.
Christ Himself said "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's."

One can argue about the whether drinking-age laws are just, but the idea that you can just pick-and-choose what laws you wish to obey is contrary to Church teaching.

And, I'm sorry, but if you regard your own personal opinions as a higher authority than the Catechism of the Church, you ain't Catholic.[/quote]


And precisely what is without basis in Church teaching? Thank you.

[Socrates]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1403303' date='Oct 15 2007, 09:08 PM']I am most certainly free to, working within the Church's tradition, decide what is right and wrong[/quote]
"Cafeteria Catholicism" in a nutshell.

People have used this excuse to justify denying just about every Church teaching there is.

[Socrates]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1403309' date='Oct 15 2007, 09:14 PM']And precisely what is without basis in Church teaching? Thank you.[/quote]
"Of course I'm free to pick and choose which laws I'll obey. This government has no authority."

[hyperdulia again]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1403310' date='Oct 15 2007, 10:15 PM']"Cafeteria Catholicism" in a nutshell.

People have used this excuse to justify denying just about every Church teaching there is.[/quote]


Ok..well don't respond..call me names...it's ok..i guess anyway..



What Church teaching am I denying??

[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?