Underage Drinking

[MissScripture]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1617123' date='Aug 4 2008, 01:27 PM']Which makes it hard to answer the question. It's like asking if driving over 65 mph is sinful. Depends on the situation.[/quote]
It's not really difficult to answer. Her answer is, if it's against the law, then it's sinful. Therefore, if it's legal for the kids to have alcohol on private property or with a parent, then it's not sinful. That's pretty straightforward if you ask me...

[aalpha1989]

The law is not infallible- we are to follow just laws. My position is that making moderate drinking under the age of 21 is unjust, and therefore we would not be obligated to follow that unjust law.

legality does not equal morality.

[Resurrexi]

Hypothetical situation:

An underage kid is at a party/get-together/hanging out with a few friends. He is worried about drinking not because doing so would be sinful itself (he believes that the drinking age laws are unjust and his parents have given him permission to drink as long as he doesn't get drunk) but that he would be giving scandal by doing so (by demonstrating a mentality of disrespect for the law or making people think he's getting drunk and that's ok). Do you think it would be an appropriate way to keep form giving scandal by informing others around him that he thinks the law is unjust, his parents gave him permission to drink and that he's not going to get drunk?

[Deb]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1617155' date='Aug 4 2008, 02:59 PM']The law is not infallible- we are to follow just laws. My position is that making moderate drinking under the age of 21 is unjust, and therefore we would not be obligated to follow that unjust law.

legality does not equal morality.[/quote]

I guess that is why everything is such a mess. Every single person thinks that they are the one who can determine if a law is just or not. Every person thinks that the law should not apply to them. Too many people decided that the rules of the Catholic Church did not apply to them so they made their own churches.
I guess things are pretty much black and white to me because I have made a decision to follow the laws of the Church because I know I am not capable of knowing what God wants for me. I would rather put my trust in those the Holy Spirit have been guiding for 200 years.
Moderate drinking for children serves no purpose at all. It is just a want and not a need. Everyone drank wine in biblical days cuz the water sucked.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1617210' date='Aug 4 2008, 03:29 PM']Hypothetical situation:

An underage kid is at a party/get-together/hanging out with a few friends. He is worried about drinking not because doing so would be sinful itself (he believes that the drinking age laws are unjust and his parents have given him permission to drink as long as he doesn't get drunk) but that he would be giving scandal by doing so (by demonstrating a mentality of disrespect for the law or making people think he's getting drunk and that's ok). Do you think it would be an appropriate way to keep form giving scandal by informing others around him that he thinks the law is unjust, his parents gave him permission to drink and that he's not going to get drunk?[/quote]
No, I think that then, the other kids, regardless of if they understand why such laws may be unjust, would run around whining about how unjust the law is, and how they shouldn't have to follow such a law, either.

[Resurrexi]

And if the law is unjust, what's wrong with that?

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Deb' post='1617212' date='Aug 4 2008, 04:29 PM']I guess that is why everything is such a mess. Every single person thinks that they are the one who can determine if a law is just or not. Every person thinks that the law should not apply to them. Too many people decided that the rules of the Catholic Church did not apply to them so they made their own churches.
I guess things are pretty much black and white to me because I have made a decision to follow the laws of the Church because I know I am not capable of knowing what God wants for me. I would rather put my trust in those the Holy Spirit have been guiding for 200 years.
Moderate drinking for children serves no purpose at all. It is just a want and not a need. Everyone drank wine in biblical days cuz the water sucked.[/quote]

? I AM following the Church's laws, I have not said anything about deciding morality for myself, I think it is objectively unjust for a government to set an age limit such as 21.

I'm using my brain just like you are, according to your logic we are both just making our own rules. I don't believe either of us are, we just have differing opinions of the matter at hand.

I AM following the laws of the Church and my trust is in the Holy Spirit. Honestly I don't really see what your point is.

I guess it depends on what you are calling "children". If you are including teenagers, I would have to respectfully disagree. And you are right, it is a want, not a need, but what right does hte government have to regulate such wants? None at all. The Swiss government banned dancing and card playing (gambling) during the Protestant reformation. Those things are wants and not needs. The government saw them as sinful and frivolous. Would you follow such outrageous laws just because those things are wants and not needs?

I know that alcohol is more dangerous than dancing and card playing, but I am just arguing against your point that alcohol is a want and therefore it does not matter.

I'm not saying that subjectively the law should not apply to me. I'm saying that objectively the law should not exist and is unjust.

[Deb]

Who determines that the law is unjust?
I think paying taxes is unjust but, that doesn't mean I get to skip them.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1617210' date='Aug 4 2008, 04:29 PM']Hypothetical situation:

An underage kid is at a party/get-together/hanging out with a few friends. He is worried about drinking not because doing so would be sinful itself (he believes that the drinking age laws are unjust and his parents have given him permission to drink as long as he doesn't get drunk) but that he would be giving scandal by doing so (by demonstrating a mentality of disrespect for the law or making people think he's getting drunk and that's ok). Do you think it would be an appropriate way to keep form giving scandal by informing others around him that he thinks the law is unjust, his parents gave him permission to drink and that he's not going to get drunk?[/quote]

No, I don't think he should say that he thinks the law is unjust at a party. I'm assuming tha thte other kids are drinking to get drunk for fun, which would be a mortal sin anyway and which makes the unjust law irrelevant. If it was just hanging out and the other kids had the same opinion of the unjust law and everyone had a drink or two (no drunkenness) then it would be appropriate and scandal woudl most likely be avoided.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Deb' post='1617234' date='Aug 4 2008, 04:44 PM']Who determines that the law is unjust?
I think paying taxes is unjust but, that doesn't mean I get to skip them.[/quote]

Paying taxes is not unjust because the government must function and DOES have the right to tax its people to a certain degree. After that point it does become unjust and I don't believe it would objectively be a sin to not pay them. You may be caught and thrown in prison, but if you have no dependants that's not really a big deal, if you're willing to suffer the consequences. It may be subjectively sinful if you do have dependants and cannot risk prison time because you have to take care of them.

You can determine that a law is unjust by using common sense. Catholics can disagree. But please don't tell me that I am not relying on the Holy Spirit or that I am breaking Church law just because we do disagree. Church law and US law are completely seperate things. Do not equate them.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1617230' date='Aug 4 2008, 03:42 PM']And if the law is unjust, what's wrong with that?[/quote]
Because most kids would use it as an excuse to say "I don't need to follow the law" and then go get drunk. Moreover, if they don't understand why it may be considered unjust, they could also decide that whatever laws they don't want to follow are "unjust." So, I think that even with an explanation, it is giving scandal.

[Deb]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1617248' date='Aug 4 2008, 04:57 PM']Paying taxes is not unjust because the government must function and DOES have the right to tax its people to a certain degree. After that point it does become unjust and I don't believe it would objectively be a sin to not pay them. You may be caught and thrown in prison, but if you have no dependants that's not really a big deal, if you're willing to suffer the consequences. It may be subjectively sinful if you do have dependants and cannot risk prison time because you have to take care of them.

You can determine that a law is unjust by using common sense. Catholics can disagree. But please don't tell me that I am not relying on the Holy Spirit or that I am breaking Church law just because we do disagree. Church law and US law are completely seperate things. Do not equate them.[/quote]

Except, I believe that the amount of taxes that I pay is unjust. Compared to others with more money or more children etc, I pay a higher portion of my income in taxes. That is in itself unjust. Why is that not any different than your determining that a child not being able to drink is unjust?

Thanks for pointing out though that Church law and US law are completely separate things. Dang, I mix that up all the time. Sometimes during lent, I fast before speeding. Please. I think you are mixing up the 'I just wanna," with Just law. Happens.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Deb' post='1617445' date='Aug 4 2008, 09:26 PM']Except, I believe that the amount of taxes that I pay is unjust. Compared to others with more money or more children etc, I pay a higher portion of my income in taxes. That is in itself unjust. Why is that not any different than your determining that a child not being able to drink is unjust?

Thanks for pointing out though that Church law and US law are completely separate things. Dang, I mix that up all the time. Sometimes during lent, I fast before speeding. Please. I think you are mixing up the 'I just wanna," with Just law. Happens.[/quote]

I already explained that it is not different. If you are paying too many taxes and you are completely independent and don't mind spending time in jail, then by all means stop paying! Calculate 10% or 5% of your income, or whatever amount you believe the government actually uses to service you and would need to fully function, and pay that much. I don't think it would be a sin.

If, however, you have children or others who depend on your freedom and would suffer greatly from your captivity, it would probably be a sin to do something that trivial which leads to your incarceration. (The fact that there is no law which allows the federal government to collect an apportioned income tax could perhaps be a factor in your decision; there's no law, but uncle sam's got the power, so most people just do what he says). people who have refused to pay an income tax have actually been acquitted by juries because the prosecution could not procure a single law which required them to.

Anyway, this is not about the tax issue (which I reiterate is not that different from the drinking issue, I explained it my previous post).

You were the one confusing Church and US law, not me. Why'd you even bring it up? I haven't said one thing against the Church or her laws, only about the authority of a given government. When I question the validity of an American law do not accuse me of breaking canon law. You DID mix them up whether you know it or not.

I'm not mixing anything up. I can honestly say that I have thought the issue through logically and have allowed no emotions or wants to sway my opinion. I'm not even interested in beer, nor am I interested in getting drunk, nor have I ever had a drink. It's just freaking ridiculous that the government says teenagers cannot legally have a drink. That was never Caesar's to say, and it never will be.

[Theosopher]

It cannot be a sin to any degree. "Underage" drinking means drinking when you are below a certain age that has been set by the civil authorities. Civil authorities do not have the power, the jurisdiction, if you will, to define what is sinful and what is not. (And praise the Beneficent Lord that they do not.) It is beyond disputation that the civil authorities are QUITE fallible.

The civil government, for instance, says that you cannot "trespass" on an abortuary. To say that to violate the proscripts of a civil government is sinful, is grave error, because it effectively gives civil authorities the power to define things as sin. Do we really want to be giving Congress the authority to declare something to be sinful?

Edited August 5, 2008 by Theosopher

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Deb' post='1617445' date='Aug 4 2008, 10:26 PM']Except, I believe that the amount of taxes that I pay is unjust. Compared to others with more money or more children etc, I pay a higher portion of my income in taxes. That is in itself unjust. Why is that not any different than your determining that a child not being able to drink is unjust?

Thanks for pointing out though that Church law and US law are completely separate things. Dang, I mix that up all the time. Sometimes during lent, I fast before speeding. Please. I think you are mixing up the 'I just wanna," with Just law. Happens.[/quote]
if your conscience tells you that the taxes are unjust, you have every right to refuse to pay them. however, so long as the injustice does not merit a just war somehow, you must also accept the punishments. same with drinking, if your conscience tells you that the law is unjust, you can drink responsbily (if under 18, it must be with parental permission because parents do indeed have just authority over your eating and drinking habits at that age)... if you get caught (which probably means you weren't drinking responsibly, responsible drinkers generally don't get caught) you must accept the punishment. accepting an unjust punishment does not mean you accept the law, you accept the punishment under protest but there is no proportionately just response to the unjustice that is imposed upon you.

a government does not have absolute power, but it does have some power... you must inform your conscience about what things the government ought to have just authority over; as with anything, an erring conscience binds but does not always excuse; it is your responsibility to let your conscience be informed about such things and it is not a responsibility to be taken lightly... ie this is not a doorway to being able to pick and choose which laws to obey willy-nilly. but you can't just take every law that doesn't require you to do something immoral and say "obey legitimate authority"... that is far too simplistic and is justification for all kinds of tyranny against freedom.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Theosopher' post='1617785' date='Aug 5 2008, 12:54 AM']It cannot be a sin to any degree. "Underage" drinking means drinking when you are below a certain age that has been set by the civil authorities. Civil authorities do not have the power, the jurisdiction, if you will, to define what is sinful and what is not. (And praise the Beneficent Lord that they do not.) It is beyond disputation that the civil authorities are QUITE fallible.

The civil government, for instance, says that you cannot "trespass" on an abortuary. To say that to violate the proscripts of a civil government is sinful, is grave error, because it effectively gives civil authorities the power to define things as sin. Do we really want to be giving Congress the authority to declare something to be sinful?[/quote]


[quote name='Aloysius' post='1617871' date='Aug 5 2008, 02:20 AM']if your conscience tells you that the taxes are unjust, you have every right to refuse to pay them. however, so long as the injustice does not merit a just war somehow, you must also accept the punishments. same with drinking, if your conscience tells you that the law is unjust, you can drink responsbily (if under 18, it must be with parental permission because parents do indeed have just authority over your eating and drinking habits at that age)... if you get caught (which probably means you weren't drinking responsibly, responsible drinkers generally don't get caught) you must accept the punishment. accepting an unjust punishment does not mean you accept the law, you accept the punishment under protest but there is no proportionately just response to the unjustice that is imposed upon you.

a government does not have absolute power, but it does have some power... you must inform your conscience about what things the government ought to have just authority over; as with anything, an erring conscience binds but does not always excuse; it is your responsibility to let your conscience be informed about such things and it is not a responsibility to be taken lightly... ie this is not a doorway to being able to pick and choose which laws to obey willy-nilly. but you can't just take every law that doesn't require you to do something immoral and say "obey legitimate authority"... that is far too simplistic and is justification for all kinds of tyranny against freedom.[/quote]

y'all say it better than I do. thanks!

[MissScripture]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1617871' date='Aug 5 2008, 01:20 AM']if your conscience tells you that the taxes are unjust, you have every right to refuse to pay them. however, so long as the injustice does not merit a just war somehow, you must also accept the punishments. same with drinking, if your conscience tells you that the law is unjust, you can drink responsbily (if under 18, it must be with parental permission because parents do indeed have just authority over your eating and drinking habits at that age)... if you get caught (which probably means you weren't drinking responsibly, responsible drinkers generally don't get caught) you must accept the punishment. accepting an unjust punishment does not mean you accept the law, you accept the punishment under protest but there is no proportionately just response to the unjustice that is imposed upon you.

a government does not have absolute power, but it does have some power... you must inform your conscience about what things the government ought to have just authority over; as with anything, an erring conscience binds but does not always excuse; it is your responsibility to let your conscience be informed about such things and it is not a responsibility to be taken lightly... ie this is not a doorway to being able to pick and choose which laws to obey willy-nilly. but you can't just take every law that doesn't require you to do something immoral and say "obey legitimate authority"... that is far too simplistic and is justification for all kinds of tyranny against freedom.[/quote]
I'm curious as to why 18 is the age at which the parents are no longer the authority over you?

[Aloysius]

because that is the age in our culture when you are supposed to begin life as an adult. of course, the age varies depending upon how much you remain dependant upon them and everything, but since our culture considers 18 the threshold of adulthood, most families operate under the understanding that the authority structure changes when you turn 18... once you are over 18 it is a pretty unwise move of your parents to try to treat you as if you are under their orders in much more than what you can do while in their house and that's the way it should be, IMHO

[havok579257]

[quote name='MissScripture' post='1618340' date='Aug 5 2008, 04:13 PM']I'm curious as to why 18 is the age at which the parents are no longer the authority over you?[/quote]


your points were right on in all your posts. everything you said was right according to church teachings, even if some don't see that.

[Winchester]

The idea of the law is to reduce alcohol abuse. If you don't abuse it, you follow the idea of the law. It's like going through a red light at 2AM after clearing your intersection--nothing morally wrong with it.