Is It Ever Okay For A Minor To Consume Alcohol?

[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

[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