AA

[estesbob]

AA helped me a lot the first few years and I automatically tied it in with my catholic faith.
I have been sober 13 years. I stopped going to meetings 8 years ago.

I quit going to daily AA meetings and started gong to daily Mass 20 years ago. BUT I would never have made it without AA

 

[triumphguy]

I’ve worked with recovering alcoholics in prison, so I know what people in AA have had to struggle through.

Thanks to all who have shared a bit of their personal story on this thread.

 

[zenith15]

I’m fully aware of all that. Please don’t insult me by continuing to suggest I “read the steps and traditions”. I was an AA member for twenty years. I worked all the steps–more than once. I had sponsors. I read every single publication they put out, including each and every back issue of the Grapevine magazine and every single book and pamphlet they produced. I also read the original edition of the Big Book, as well as all of the updated (i.e., with new stories) editions in full. I have also read many many books about AA’s history, many biographies of Bill W. (including his nurses’ testimonies of how he begged piteously for “just three fingers” of whiskey on his death bed, his womanizing, his experiments with LSD once sober, and his severe depression that lasted most of his sober life), and would dare say I know more about the history of AA than the vast majority of members. And I know just how they feel about the steps being “suggestions only”. In fact, the AA joke is that the steps are “suggestions” in the same way that it is “suggested” you wear a parachute before stepping out of an airplane.

If it works for you and you are comfortable with it, that’s fine. If you can get your priest to be your AA sponsor, great–but there certainly are not enough priests to go around to sponsor every AA member, and there is no law protecting confidentiality for AA sponsors, as was evidenced in a case not too long ago where a man confessed murder to the sponsor. AA sponsors are not professionals, nor are they trained in any way to handle confessions of serious matters, tales of abuse suffered, etc and may say things to the sponsee which may worsen the situation, through lack of knowledge.

As for medical evidence–there are now several medications available to treat alcoholism (antabuse, naltrexone and alcamprosate are a few), and there is increasing evidence that all addictions can frequently be tied to brain chemistry disorders, which the person may be trying to “self treat” by drinking or using drugs. The success rate for people who do nothing at all to treat their disease but simply have a spontaneous remission is 5%–the same as that for AA’s incoming members who are still there, sober, one year later.

All that being said, Bill himself, when speaking to the AMA in the late 1950’s, stated that he was well aware that medical science was rapidly developing treatments for what had once been a disease with no treatment at all, and that AA fully supported them and in no way felt that theirs was the only way–yet today we still find many many many AA members who will tell sponsees that AA is the only path to sobriety and that if they fail to get sober in AA it is their own fault and never that of the program, leaving many people in great despair. But there ARE other methods that DO work, that are evidence based, medical programs, and that do not require or “suggest” that you tell your every sin to an untrained “sponsor”, or tell you that you can choose a bedpan for a god or a doorknob or “nature”, etc.

This has gotten a bit off track, but my general feeling from my many years of experience and study in this field (I am a trained substance abuse counselor, a patient educator, and have a degree in professional nursing) has given me a broader understanding of AA and of addictive disease in general than I once had, and this is merely my opinion, based on that experience. I was just responding initially to the OP’s question, but have no desire to argue at length with those who feel AA has helped them. I am however very interested to know if it is in fact true that AA is considering revisions to the book, because everything I have ever read has said they would never consider any revisions at all in the initial section of the book (i.e., the non personal-story section). If anyone has a link to that information I would really appreciate it.

 

[estesbob]

I’m fully aware of all that. Please don’t insult me by continuing to suggest I “read the steps and traditions”. I was an AA member for twenty years. I worked all the steps–more than once. I had sponsors. I read every single publication they put out, including each and every back issue of the Grapevine magazine and every single book and pamphlet they produced. I also read the original edition of the Big Book, as well as all of the updated (i.e., with new stories) editions in full. I have also read many many books about AA’s history, many biographies of Bill W. (including his nurses’ testimonies of how he begged piteously for “just three fingers” of whiskey on his death bed, his womanizing, his experiments with LSD once sober, and his severe depression that lasted most of his sober life), and would dare say I know more about the history of AA than the vast majority of members. And I know just how they feel about the steps being “suggestions only”. In fact, the AA joke is that the steps are “suggestions” in the same way that it is “suggested” you wear a parachute before stepping out of an airplane.

If it works for you and you are comfortable with it, that’s fine. If you can get your priest to be your AA sponsor, great–but there certainly are not enough priests to go around to sponsor every AA member, and there is no law protecting confidentiality for AA sponsors, as was evidenced in a case not too long ago where a man confessed murder to the sponsor. AA sponsors are not professionals, nor are they trained in any way to handle confessions of serious matters, tales of abuse suffered, etc and may say things to the sponsee which may worsen the situation, through lack of knowledge.

As for medical evidence–there are now several medications available to treat alcoholism (antabuse, naltrexone and alcamprosate are a few), and there is increasing evidence that all addictions can frequently be tied to brain chemistry disorders, which the person may be trying to “self treat” by drinking or using drugs. The success rate for people who do nothing at all to treat their disease but simply have a spontaneous remission is 5%–the same as that for AA’s incoming members who are still there, sober, one year later.

All that being said, Bill himself, when speaking to the AMA in the late 1950’s, stated that he was well aware that medical science was rapidly developing treatments for what had once been a disease with no treatment at all, and that AA fully supported them and in no way felt that theirs was the only way–yet today we still find many many many AA members who will tell sponsees that AA is the only path to sobriety and that if they fail to get sober in AA it is their own fault and never that of the program, leaving many people in great despair. But there ARE other methods that DO work, that are evidence based, medical programs, and that do not require or “suggest” that you tell your every sin to an untrained “sponsor”, or tell you that you can choose a bedpan for a god or a doorknob or “nature”, etc.

This has gotten a bit off track, but my general feeling from my many years of experience and study in this field (I am a trained substance abuse counselor, a patient educator, and have a degree in professional nursing) has given me a broader understanding of AA and of addictive disease in general than I once had, and this is merely my opinion, based on that experience. I was just responding initially to the OP’s question, but have no desire to argue at length with those who feel AA has helped them. I am however very interested to know if it is in fact true that AA is considering revisions to the book, because everything I have ever read has said they would never consider any revisions at all in the initial section of the book (i.e., the non personal-story section). If anyone has a link to that information I would really appreciate it.

Just curious-are you still sober?

 

[Mgray82]

I’m fully aware of all that. Please don’t insult me by continuing to suggest I “read the steps and traditions”. I was an AA member for twenty years. I worked all the steps–more than once. I had sponsors. I read every single publication they put out, including each and every back issue of the Grapevine magazine and every single book and pamphlet they produced. I also read the original edition of the Big Book, as well as all of the updated (i.e., with new stories) editions in full. I have also read many many books about AA’s history, many biographies of Bill W. (including his nurses’ testimonies of how he begged piteously for “just three fingers” of whiskey on his death bed, his womanizing, his experiments with LSD once sober, and his severe depression that lasted most of his sober life), and would dare say I know more about the history of AA than the vast majority of members. And I know just how they feel about the steps being “suggestions only”. In fact, the AA joke is that the steps are “suggestions” in the same way that it is “suggested” you wear a parachute before stepping out of an airplane.

If it works for you and you are comfortable with it, that’s fine. If you can get your priest to be your AA sponsor, great–but there certainly are not enough priests to go around to sponsor every AA member, and there is no law protecting confidentiality for AA sponsors, as was evidenced in a case not too long ago where a man confessed murder to the sponsor. AA sponsors are not professionals, nor are they trained in any way to handle confessions of serious matters, tales of abuse suffered, etc and may say things to the sponsee which may worsen the situation, through lack of knowledge.

As for medical evidence–there are now several medications available to treat alcoholism (antabuse, naltrexone and alcamprosate are a few), and there is increasing evidence that all addictions can frequently be tied to brain chemistry disorders, which the person may be trying to “self treat” by drinking or using drugs. The success rate for people who do nothing at all to treat their disease but simply have a spontaneous remission is 5%–the same as that for AA’s incoming members who are still there, sober, one year later.

All that being said, Bill himself, when speaking to the AMA in the late 1950’s, stated that he was well aware that medical science was rapidly developing treatments for what had once been a disease with no treatment at all, and that AA fully supported them and in no way felt that theirs was the only way–yet today we still find many many many AA members who will tell sponsees that AA is the only path to sobriety and that if they fail to get sober in AA it is their own fault and never that of the program, leaving many people in great despair. But there ARE other methods that DO work, that are evidence based, medical programs, and that do not require or “suggest” that you tell your every sin to an untrained “sponsor”, or tell you that you can choose a bedpan for a god or a doorknob or “nature”, etc.

This has gotten a bit off track, but my general feeling from my many years of experience and study in this field (I am a trained substance abuse counselor, a patient educator, and have a degree in professional nursing) has given me a broader understanding of AA and of addictive disease in general than I once had, and this is merely my opinion, based on that experience. I was just responding initially to the OP’s question, but have no desire to argue at length with those who feel AA has helped them. I am however very interested to know if it is in fact true that AA is considering revisions to the book, because everything I have ever read has said they would never consider any revisions at all in the initial section of the book (i.e., the non personal-story section). If anyone has a link to that information I would really appreciate it.

Zenith15, I choose not to believe everything I read. If I did I probably wouldnt be convertig Catholic. Secondly, I don’t go to AA for Bill Wilson, or the Big Book or for what “medical professionals” say. I go there for me.

I get something out of looking another alcoholic in the eye, shaking their hand and telling them I love them…that there’s hope here, and we love you no matter which doorknob you call your higher power.

No doctor ever told me that would be the affect I would get from taking Antabuse (besides throwing up from drinking because I drank on it…or maybe I’m about to have a heart attack because I snorted too much cocaine because I couldn’t drink)

I can’t control what people in AA do just as much as the church can’t control what certain priests do…this argument is rhetorical…some of my favorite AA members are priests by the way. I know of 3 off the top of my head…(see Fr. Gavin G., Fr. Vaughn Q.)

You made an incorrect statement in your first post, followed by many more. Of course I’m going to respond.

Lastly, I’m not sure you’re going to find any articles on Big Book revisions. My hope is that they do revise it. If not, I’m okay with it.

I’ve also talked to a friend that has went to a committee meeting to discus the role of the traditions in regards to social media (ie, is it okay to have a group on Facebook). But I can’t provide anything on that either. Guess you’re just gonna have to take it or leave it.

Hope you change some of your outlooks about your subjective philosophy of AA…as they say “it’s not all about you”.

-God Bless

 

[Boulder257]

If you think you have a problem with alcohol, I would highly suggest going to an AA meeting and talking to some sober alcoholics.

As a cradle Catholic and member of AA, I have not seen anything in my understanding of the 12 steps that interferes with or goes against the Catholic Church. I believe allowing alcoholics to use their concept of a higher power was meant to make the AA program as inclusive as possible. I have no problem talking with fellow AA’s who come from different faith backgrounds. When I am in a meeting or talking with another alcoholic, I am trying to help myself and them stay sober.

Hope this helps!

Exactly. I have never once had anyone tell me that my Catholic faith was a problem in an AA meeting, nor have I ever tried to “convert” someone who wasn’t Catholic. I will say this, without AA I would not be sober now for 10 years. And, I truly believe that it was God who led me to AA. As we say in the program, “take what you need and leave the rest.” Everyone in the room is there because they are struggling with Alcohol. I have NEVER heard an argument about the meaning of a higher power, or people argue about which one is “right.” Everyone picks the pieces and parts of the program that work for them.

I also like the earlier suggesting to just attend a Catholic AA meeting, if one is available to you.

 

[tundramom]

Please provide the nurse’s statement saying that Bill begged for three fingers of whiskey… I’d heard that same rumor about Dr. Bob.

I am grateful that I don’t have to know why it works, but that it just does. Faith works like that. It’s the same thing I went through when trying to grasp the Trinity before I became Catholic.

AA gave me my physical life back. My Catholic Faith gave me my spiritual life. It gave me Jesus.

Steph

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m fully aware of all that. Please don’t insult me by continuing to suggest I “read the steps and traditions”. I was an AA member for twenty years. I worked all the steps–more than once. I had sponsors. I read every single publication they put out, including each and every back issue of the Grapevine magazine and every single book and pamphlet they produced. I also read the original edition of the Big Book, as well as all of the updated (i.e., with new stories) editions in full. I have also read many many books about AA’s history, many biographies of Bill W. (including his nurses’ testimonies of how he begged piteously for “just three fingers” of whiskey on his death bed, his womanizing, his experiments with LSD once sober, and his severe depression that lasted most of his sober life), and would dare say I know more about the history of AA than the vast majority of members. And I know just how they feel about the steps being “suggestions only”. In fact, the AA joke is that the steps are “suggestions” in the same way that it is “suggested” you wear a parachute before stepping out of an airplane.

If it works for you and you are comfortable with it, that’s fine. If you can get your priest to be your AA sponsor, great–but there certainly are not enough priests to go around to sponsor every AA member, and there is no law protecting confidentiality for AA sponsors, as was evidenced in a case not too long ago where a man confessed murder to the sponsor. AA sponsors are not professionals, nor are they trained in any way to handle confessions of serious matters, tales of abuse suffered, etc and may say things to the sponsee which may worsen the situation, through lack of knowledge.

As for medical evidence–there are now several medications available to treat alcoholism (antabuse, naltrexone and alcamprosate are a few), and there is increasing evidence that all addictions can frequently be tied to brain chemistry disorders, which the person may be trying to “self treat” by drinking or using drugs. The success rate for people who do nothing at all to treat their disease but simply have a spontaneous remission is 5%–the same as that for AA’s incoming members who are still there, sober, one year later.

All that being said, Bill himself, when speaking to the AMA in the late 1950’s, stated that he was well aware that medical science was rapidly developing treatments for what had once been a disease with no treatment at all, and that AA fully supported them and in no way felt that theirs was the only way–yet today we still find many many many AA members who will tell sponsees that AA is the only path to sobriety and that if they fail to get sober in AA it is their own fault and never that of the program, leaving many people in great despair. But there ARE other methods that DO work, that are evidence based, medical programs, and that do not require or “suggest” that you tell your every sin to an untrained “sponsor”, or tell you that you can choose a bedpan for a god or a doorknob or “nature”, etc.

This has gotten a bit off track, but my general feeling from my many years of experience and study in this field (I am a trained substance abuse counselor, a patient educator, and have a degree in professional nursing) has given me a broader understanding of AA and of addictive disease in general than I once had, and this is merely my opinion, based on that experience. I was just responding initially to the OP’s question, but have no desire to argue at length with those who feel AA has helped them. I am however very interested to know if it is in fact true that AA is considering revisions to the book, because everything I have ever read has said they would never consider any revisions at all in the initial section of the book (i.e., the non personal-story section). If anyone has a link to that information I would really appreciate it.

Zenith,

The people that love AA love AA. Here are facts.

Addiction of any kind is only a disease if you believe it is a disease and it is not based on medical science. When you see “cure” “treatment” then this is based on a belief founded on brainwashing of the medical societies that it is a disease.

Paradigms on alcoholism include:

Disease that equates to AA/12 step religion. AA has been declared to be a religion by the US Supreme Court. The origins of thought of the Big Book was to be the equivalent of the Bible…this can be heard by listening to Joe and Charley…The hopes of Wilson was to have centers and missionaries. The Big book references “character defects” that in the accompanying 12/12 traditions defines character defects as sin. So you are going to AA to correct your “sins”…Reality is that statistically this model has a less than 5% success rate that equates to spontaneous recovery or doing nothing.

Celebrate Recovery is a Protestant organization that I understand some Catholic Churches have used as well. The problem I have with it is that it uses “recovery”…and this contrasts with addiction/recovery vs sin/salvation.

Habit that equates to changing your habits. This can be found in SMART and many other programs. St Jude and St. Gregory do not address addiction as disease and on these sites you will see refutation of the disease theory.

Sin that equates to seeking salvation. The Catholic paradigm on this includes not being powerless except on your own and with grace/faith and the subsequent virtues that come through human effort you can accomplish your goal.

Much of the reality of addiction can be found at several places and I would start with Peele’s work, The Truth about Addiction…

I just came across a book called Demystifying Sobriety…that outlines the various paradigms if you are interested.

 

[Mgray82]

Zenith,

The people that love AA love AA. Here are facts.

Addiction of any kind is only a disease if you believe it is a disease and it is not based on medical science. When you see “cure” “treatment” then this is based on a belief founded on brainwashing of the medical societies that it is a disease.

Paradigms on alcoholism include:

Disease that equates to AA/12 step religion. AA has been declared to be a religion by the US Supreme Court. The origins of thought of the Big Book was to be the equivalent of the Bible…this can be heard by listening to Joe and Charley…The hopes of Wilson was to have centers and missionaries. The Big book references “character defects” that in the accompanying 12/12 traditions defines character defects as sin. So you are going to AA to correct your “sins”…Reality is that statistically this model has a less than 5% success rate that equates to spontaneous recovery or doing nothing.

The Supreme Court has not ruled AA a religion…that’s a lie (see 12 Traditions). AA makes it a point to establish the fact that they are not affiliated with any religion.

And anyway, it would be against the church for a priest or any other catholic to attend AA if this were so. Yet there are priests very active in AA.

Like zenith15, you propose arguments with no evidence.

 

[CopticChristian]

The Supreme Court has not ruled AA a religion…that’s a lie (see 12 Traditions). AA makes it a point to establish the fact that they are not affiliated with any religion.

And anyway, it would be against the church for a priest or any other catholic to attend AA if this were so. Yet there are priests very active in AA.

Like zenith15, you propose arguments with no evidence.

Mgray,

You accuse me of lying. What AA establishes has nothing to do with the Supreme Court.

Will you ask for forgiveness in the accusation that I am a liar if I am able to convince you that I am not a liar?

What arguments do I propose that have no evidence? I have proposed no arguments only facts. You dispute fact not argument.

Help me understand your anger.

Here are some facts for you while you ponder your response…

morerevealed.com/library/resist/r_chap_4.htm

 

[CopticChristian]

The Supreme Court has not ruled AA a religion…that’s a lie (see 12 Traditions). AA makes it a point to establish the fact that they are not affiliated with any religion.

And anyway, it would be against the church for a priest or any other catholic to attend AA if this were so. Yet there are priests very active in AA.

Like zenith15, you propose arguments with no evidence.

Mgray,

Here is some more help for you…

Here is a sampling of courts that have ruled either that AA is a religion or that it is religious:

the Federal 7th Circuit Court in Wisconsin, 1984
the Federal District Court for Southern New York, 1994
the New York Court of Appeals, 1996
the New York State Supreme Court, 1996
the U.S. Supreme Court, 1997
the Tennessee State Supreme Court
the Federal 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, 1996
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh District, 1996
the Federal Appeals Court in Chicago, 1996
The Federal Appeals Court in Hawaii, 2007

and this…

the Griffin v. Coughlin decision, from the New York State Court of Appeals, 1996, was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1997. In Griffin v. Coughlin, the prison inmate David Griffin complained that state prison officials in 1991 told David Griffin, a self-described atheist with a history of drug abuse, that in order to be eligible for expanded family visitation privileges, including conjugal visits, he would have to attend a prison rehabilitation program patterned after AA’s 12-Step model.2 Griffin, then a prisoner at the Shawangunk Correctional Facility in Ulster County, refused to attend the program, contending that the 12-Step approach requires participants to express a belief in a “power greater than ourselves” and to “turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood him.” These requirements, his lawsuit against the state contended, violate the First Amendment’s mandated separation of church and state. Griffin lost in two lower courts, but won in New York State’s highest court, the New York Court of Appeals.** In Griffin v. Coughlin, Judge Levine, writing for the court’s majority, concluded that the AA program is devoted to proselytizing for a religious belief.** The court’s conclusion was based on its reading of several profiles of early AA members as they are set forth in the AA Big Book and the AA Twelve and Twelve. Judge Levine said “While it is of course true that the primary objective of A.A. is to enable its adherents to achieve sobriety, its doctrine unmistakably urges that the path to staying sober and to becoming happily and usefully whole is by wholeheartedly embracing traditional theistic beliefs.” From its review of AA literature, the majority concluded that the AA Twelve Steps amount to a worship service and that the AA fellowship is dedicated to converting alcoholics to a belief in a traditional deity. Accordingly, the court found that, “The foregoing demonstrates beyond peradventure that doctrinally and as actually practiced in the 12-Step methodology, adherence to the A.A. fellowship entails engagement in religious activity and religious proselytization. Followers are urged to accept the existence of God as a Supreme Being, Creator, Father of Light and Spirit of the Universe.” **When the U.S. Supreme Court heard the appeal, it sided with the atheist convict who said the New York Department of Corrections’ attempt to link extra privileges for inmates with attendance at meetings modeled after Alcoholics Anonymous violated the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state.3 **

 

[estesbob]

Zenith,

The people that love AA love AA. Here are facts.

Addiction of any kind is only a disease if you believe it is a disease and it is not based on medical science. When you see “cure” “treatment” then this is based on a belief founded on brainwashing of the medical societies that it is a disease.

Paradigms on alcoholism include:

Disease that equates to AA/12 step religion. AA has been declared to be a religion by the US Supreme Court. The origins of thought of the Big Book was to be the equivalent of the Bible…this can be heard by listening to Joe and Charley…The hopes of Wilson was to have centers and missionaries. The Big book references “character defects” that in the accompanying 12/12 traditions defines character defects as sin. So you are going to AA to correct your “sins”…Reality is that statistically this model has a less than 5% success rate that equates to spontaneous recovery or doing nothing.

Celebrate Recovery is a Protestant organization that I understand some Catholic Churches have used as well. The problem I have with it is that it uses “recovery”…and this contrasts with addiction/recovery vs sin/salvation.

Habit that equates to changing your habits. This can be found in SMART and many other programs. St Jude and St. Gregory do not address addiction as disease and on these sites you will see refutation of the disease theory.

Sin that equates to seeking salvation. The Catholic paradigm on this includes not being powerless except on your own and with grace/faith and the subsequent virtues that come through human effort you can accomplish your goal.

Much of the reality of addiction can be found at several places and I would start with Peele’s work, The Truth about Addiction…

I just came across a book called Demystifying Sobriety…that outlines the various paradigms if you are interested.

1. How long you been sober?
2. How many AA meetings have you attended.

 

[CopticChristian]

1. How long you been sober?
2. How many AA meetings have you attended.

Eee,

What is the purpose of your questions?

I do not accept the 12 step/AA religion/Disease Model paradigm so to speak of “sober” means that I do. I believe in habit, mistakes, correction and sin and salvation.

Do you ask someone that has sinned how long have you been without sin?

The number of meetings in your mind equates to what? I am sure that you have knowledge or experience of someone that gets a cake, attends meetings, “relapses” and dies. So what does the number of meetings equate to for you?

If someone attends the Catholic Church for 12 years but believes in Scientology what does that mean?

 

[estesbob]

Mgray,

Here is some more help for you…

Here is a sampling of courts that have ruled either that AA is a religion or that it is religious:

the Federal 7th Circuit Court in Wisconsin, 1984
the Federal District Court for Southern New York, 1994
the New York Court of Appeals, 1996
the New York State Supreme Court, 1996
the U.S. Supreme Court, 1997
the Tennessee State Supreme Court
the Federal 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, 1996
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh District, 1996
the Federal Appeals Court in Chicago, 1996
The Federal Appeals Court in Hawaii, 2007

and this…

the Griffin v. Coughlin decision, from the New York State Court of Appeals, 1996, was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1997. In Griffin v. Coughlin, the prison inmate David Griffin complained that state prison officials in 1991 told David Griffin, a self-described atheist with a history of drug abuse, that in order to be eligible for expanded family visitation privileges, including conjugal visits, he would have to attend a prison rehabilitation program patterned after AA’s 12-Step model.2 Griffin, then a prisoner at the Shawangunk Correctional Facility in Ulster County, refused to attend the program, contending that the 12-Step approach requires participants to express a belief in a “power greater than ourselves” and to “turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood him.” These requirements, his lawsuit against the state contended, violate the First Amendment’s mandated separation of church and state. Griffin lost in two lower courts, but won in New York State’s highest court, the New York Court of Appeals.** In Griffin v. Coughlin, Judge Levine, writing for the court’s majority, concluded that the AA program is devoted to proselytizing for a religious belief.** The court’s conclusion was based on its reading of several profiles of early AA members as they are set forth in the AA Big Book and the AA Twelve and Twelve. Judge Levine said “While it is of course true that the primary objective of A.A. is to enable its adherents to achieve sobriety, its doctrine unmistakably urges that the path to staying sober and to becoming happily and usefully whole is by wholeheartedly embracing traditional theistic beliefs.” From its review of AA literature, the majority concluded that the AA Twelve Steps amount to a worship service and that the AA fellowship is dedicated to converting alcoholics to a belief in a traditional deity. Accordingly, the court found that, “The foregoing demonstrates beyond peradventure that doctrinally and as actually practiced in the 12-Step methodology, adherence to the A.A. fellowship entails engagement in religious activity and religious proselytization. Followers are urged to accept the existence of God as a Supreme Being, Creator, Father of Light and Spirit of the Universe.” **When the U.S. Supreme Court heard the appeal, it sided with the atheist convict who said the New York Department of Corrections’ attempt to link extra privileges for inmates with attendance at meetings modeled after Alcoholics Anonymous violated the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state.3 **

So? The idea that an AA meeting is a worship service is one of the silliest things I’ve ever heard. It appears that you came to this idea based on your personal interpretation of reading AA literature.If you don’t like AA that is your perogative but please do not discourage people desperately seeking sobriety from checking out this program that is helped millions of us obtain and maintain sobriety.There is absolutely no conflict between attending AA meetings and practicing ones Catholic Faith

 

[CopticChristian]

So? The idea that an AA meeting is a worship service is one of the silliest things I’ve ever heard. It appears that you came to this idea based on your personal interpretation of reading AA literature.If you don’t like AA that is your perogative but please do not discourage people desperately seeking sobriety from checking out this program that is helped millions of us obtain and maintain sobriety.There is absolutely no conflict between attending AA meetings and practicing ones Catholic Faith

Est…

You have made an inference based on your belief…show me anywhere in my posting where I discouraged anyone. I posted paradigms and facts.

Fact. AA has no better than a 5% response rate in changing the habit of alcoholic addiction and ranks around 37 when compared to other modalities…it has a miserable rate of improvement for those that attend. Those that attend and have been aided believe otherwise. This is fact. I suggest nothing about attending or not attending.

Fact. The notion that Addiction is a disease is based on faulty science and is not accpeted by the entire medical community. It is not a disease, never will be a disease and if you accept it is a disease then you must ask what kind of disease. What kind of disease is this? A Spiritual Disease? Huh…Ok then let’s go there…

Your understanding of how I came to my opinion is based on another inference.

 

[estesbob]

Eee,

What is the purpose of your questions?

I do not accept the 12 step/AA religion/Disease Model paradigm so to speak of “sober” means that I do. I believe in habit, mistakes, correction and sin and salvation.

Do you ask someone that has sinned how long have you been without sin?

The number of meetings in your mind equates to what?

If someone attends the Catholic Church for 12 years but believes in Scientology what does that mean?

I want to know if you’re giving advice about a program you have no experience with and a medical condition you do not have?

If you have no experience whatsoever with alcoholic anonymous and either are not a alcoholic or have found another way to control your alcoholism I think the OP needs to know that when evaluating your advice.This is not a philosophical discussion. This is not a discussion about a person who is seeking help for a life-threatening condition. i know from personal experience that alcoholics anonymous is responsible for my 28 years of sobriety. I know as one who attends mass 5 to 6 times a week that in no way conflicts with the catholic faith.

 

[CopticChristian]

I want to know if you’re giving advice about a program you have no experience with and a medical condition you do not have?

If you have no experience whatsoever with alcoholic anonymous and either are not a alcoholic or have found another way to control your alcoholism I think the OP needs to know that when evaluating your advice.This is not a philosophical discussion. This is not a discussion about a person who is seeking help for a life-threatening condition. i know from personal experience that alcoholics anonymous is responsible for my 28 years of sobriety. I know as one who attends mass 5 to 6 times a week that in no way conflicts with the catholic faith.

Est,

You speak from a disease model paradigm that says only an alcoholic can help an alcoholic. This bespeaks of swallowing the brainwashing of the disease model.

Program=12 step AA/Religion/disease model paradigm
Medical condition= acceptance of the disease model

You were helped and that is great. Your experience is your experience.

I suggest you understand that there are two approaches to understanding Empiricism and Rationalism. You are promoting empiriicism.

I don’t have to be diabetic to know and understand how to deal with a diabetic. I don’t have to have heart disease to revive someone that had a Myocardial Infarction. I don’t have to break my leg to know what to do with a broken leg.

I don’t have to accept the disease model and discuss what I consider to be habit/vice/sin with disease model dialogue.

I pointed out that there are 37 better ways to approach this problem and your main concern is how you feel about AA. I would imagine that if someone had Cancer…and I said…

Did you know that what you are doing ranks about 37 on a large scale of tried and true approaches and there are better approaches…you might say…WHAT ARE THEY…I am getting the 37th best approach…you mean that there are better ways?

or

I like my Cancer, yes I know that there are 37 better ways…but this way makes me feel good, my Cancer is under control and it worked for me…why should I care if there are 37 better ways…who cares?

 

[estesbob]

Est,

You speak from a disease model paradigm that says only an alcoholic can help an alcoholic. This bespeaks of swallowing the brainwashing of the disease model.

Program=12 step AA/Religion/disease model paradigm
Medical condition= acceptance of the disease model

You were helped and that is great. Your experience is your experience.

I suggest you understand that there are two approaches to understanding Empiricism and Rationalism. You are promoting empiriicism.

I don’t have to be diabetic to know and understand how to deal with a diabetic. I don’t have to have heart disease to revive someone that had a Myocardial Infarction. I don’t have to break my leg to know what to do with a broken leg.

I don’t have to accept the disease model and discuss what I consider to be habit/vice/sin with disease model dialogue.

I pointed out that there are 37 better ways to approach this problem and your main concern is how you feel about AA. I would imagine that if someone had Cancer…and I said…

Did you know that what you are doing ranks about 37 on a large scale of tried and true approaches and there are better approaches…you might say…WHAT ARE THEY…I am getting the 37th best approach…you mean that there are better ways?

or

I like my Cancer, yes I know that there are 37 better ways…but this way makes me feel good, my Cancer is under control and it worked for me…why should I care if there are 37 better ways…who cares?

I speak from 28 years of AA-based sobriety and a lifetime of Catholicism. I know AA works.I know it does not conflict with catholicism. you know only what you interpret from what you read. I leave it up to the original poster to determine who can best help him out in evaluating on how to best gain sobriety.

 

[CopticChristian]

I didn’t say it was “problematic for an alcoholic who is catholic”. I simply pointed out their beliefs with regard to a “higher power”, which is that anything at all can be your higher power, be it “god” (of any description), nature, the AA group, inanimate objects, etc and that whatever power YOU choose has the capability to “restore you to sanity”–as long as the “power” isn’t you yourself. Since you mentioned it, though, I would have to say that doesn’t really fall in line with Catholic teaching.

Z,

You are correct…a preliminary document that usually raises eyebrows…

Jesus Christ the Bearer of the Water of Life says that…

Addiction and Recovery have replaced Sin and Salvation

Now someone is goint to point out that this is a preliminary document…well Ok…

But nothing will change the reality that what we are talking about is…Sin/Salvation…that is a truth that will never change and I believe that while prompting and urging those that attend AA to get their lives in order…the ultimate goal is to recognize the sin and seek salvation through human effort that then turns the notion that you are powerless into bunk.

 

[CopticChristian]

I speak from 28 years of AA-based sobriety and a lifetime of Catholicism. I know AA works.I know it does not conflict with catholicism. you know only what you interpret from what you read. I leave it up to the original poster to determine who can best help him out in evaluating on how to best gain sobriety.

Est,

Praise the Lord. You are without the sin of drunkeness. Alleluia. How you did it is your personal journey. What you attribute it to is yours to treasure. “Sobriety” means acceptance of the disease model/12 step paradigm and the fact that you are Catholic and faithful is more important in my mind that your fidelity to AA.

You infer I only know what I interpret and read. Ok.

I have seen too many “I used to be Catholic” or “I am a recovering Catholic and recovering Alcoholic” that causes me concern about what AA does for some, not all.

I want to tell you that you are not diseased. You never were diseased. You will never be diseased with alcohol or any other substance unless you have the consequences of alcohol like Pancreatitis and Cirhosis, then you will be diseased. You don’t have to wear your sin like the Scarlet Letter. I am in favor of not introducing yourself as an alcoholic rather introducing yourself as a child of God that is subject to sin like everyone else.

You are renouncing sin, just like our Baptismal vow, seeking salvation…glad your in the OHCAC:thumbsup: