Is underage drinking a sin?

[underacloud]

Do you think the state has a right to intervene if they find parents who are serving beer to a toddler?

Of course, yes, they have a right to intervene.

What about a 10 year old?

Again, of course.

As per the Jimmy Akin piece I posted, it is something of a sliding scale, but in general the principle holds that the state does have a right to intervene in these matters for the good of minors. Your argument that subsidiarity is on your side as a general principle does not hold up against the above examples. There are arguments that can be made in your favour, but I do not think this one holds up.

 

[Moses_the_Black_1]

Do you think the state has a right to intervene if they find parents who are serving beer to a toddler?

Of course, yes, they have a right to intervene.

What about a 10 year old?

Again, of course.

As per the Jimmy Akin piece I posted, it is something of a sliding scale, but in general the principle holds that the state does have a right to intervene in these matters for the good of minors. Your argument that subsidiarity is on your side as a general principle does not hold up against the above examples. There are arguments that can be made in your favour, but I do not think this one holds up.

I would say it is objectively immoral to serve a beer to a toddler. Therefore, the state has a right to condemn it in the home as an objective moral evil. The same could be said for 10 year old. However, you can’t say that an 18 year old drinking a beer is an objective moral evil at all. As matter of act, I think we can agree that an 18 year old drinking a beer is a morally neutral action. Because this is not a morally evil act, the judgment should rest on the parents and the property owners. The state has not right to arbitrarily define a “mature drinking age” when it’s out of it’s own jurisdiction. Unless you can show me how an 18 year old is a morally objectionable act in and of itself, I see no reason why this judgment call should be deflected to the state and not the parents.

PS: I was talking to Lebanese Catholic and women and she told me it was a Maronite tradition to feed arak to the newly baptized children. As a 7th month old, her aunt dipped fingered small drops of this alcoholic beverage into her mouth. Would u consider this objectively immoral? Also, some on this thread of mentioned that kids as young as 7 were allowed to drink watered down wine at dinner in Europe. Would you consider this immoral?

 

[JerryZ]

Do you think the state has a right to intervene if they find parents who are serving beer to a toddler?

Of course, yes, they have a right to intervene.

What about a 10 year old?

Again, of course.

As per the Jimmy Akin piece I posted, it is something of a sliding scale, but in general the principle holds that the state does have a right to intervene in these matters for the good of minors. Your argument that subsidiarity is on your side as a general principle does not hold up against the above examples. There are arguments that can be made in your favour, but I do not think this one holds up.

80% of parents in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, France, Spain, etc, would be thrown in jail according to that!
And yet over there, alcoholism although a problem, is less prevalent among young adults than it is over here.
Having been trained on the proper use of alcohol since little, there is less of a chance of abuse later on.
Contrast that with the draconian way it is imposed over here, not even with uniformity across the whole country, where you have states that are very aggressive and others less so.
What you get is young people craving for the freedom to drink beer mostly to excess of course with all the negative effects that such a reckless behaviour entails.

…

 

[Moses_the_Black_1]

---

I posted this in ‘Family Life’ but thought this place would be better.

I’m 18 years old and last week I was at my cabin with my family. My uncle offered me a beer and I refused on grounds of obeying civil law. (I live in Michigan and Michigan law prohibits anyone under 21 consuming alcohol except for religious or medicinal purposes ) However, I am now rethinking this position. I understand we have a moral duty to obey just civil laws. However, in the face of unjust laws, “it is legitimate for them (citizens) to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of natural law and the Law of the Gospel.” CCC 2242. While the government obviously has the right to set drinking laws in the public realm, I would reckon it an “abuse of authority” for them to set this restriction on the privacy of me and my family’s home. Ultimately, my parents have the responsibility of raising me, not the government. As the Catechism states, “Following the principle of subsidiarity, larger communities should take care not to usurp the family’s prerogatives or interfere in its life” CCC 2209. By disregarding the judgment of my parent’s, the state oversteps it’s boundaries and wrongfully asserts it’s authority in my familial life. This unjust law is an offense against subsidiarity and therefore need not be obeyed. My parents know far more about me than the state does and I their judgment is much more pertinent in such a trivial matter.

Does anyone agree or disagree? I’d love to here your feedback and comments

Pax Christi,
Michael

 

[underacloud]

I would say it is objectively immoral to serve a beer to a toddler. Therefore, the state has a right to condemn it in the home as an objective moral evil. The same could be said for 10 year old. However, you can’t say that an 18 year old drinking a beer is an objective moral evil at all. As matter of act, I think we can agree that an 18 year old drinking a beer is a morally neutral action. Because this is not a morally evil act, the judgment should rest on the parents and the property owners. The state has not right to arbitrarily define a “mature drinking age” when it’s out of it’s own jurisdiction. Unless you can show me how an 18 year old is a morally objectionable act in and of itself, I see no reason why this judgment call should be deflected to the state and not the parents.

No one in this thread has suggested that an 18 year old drinking beer is an objective moral evil. It’s about the right of the state to make laws and the obligation of Catholics to obey those laws as long as they are not in themselves immoral.

Again, refer back to the Jimmy Akin article. He covers your concerns therein.

 

[underacloud]

Having been trained on the proper use of alcohol since little, there is less of a chance of abuse later on.

Actually, research has contradicted this old understanding. I used to think this way, and certainly myself was drinking (responsibly and with my parents consent) well before legal age. But research has made me rethink how and when I will let my own children drink.

EasterJoy has touched on much of the research in this area already.

 

[Moses_the_Black_1]

No one in this thread has suggested that an 18 year old drinking beer is an objective moral evil. It’s about the right of the state to make laws and the obligation of Catholics to obey those laws as long as they are not in themselves immoral.

Again, refer back to the Jimmy Akin article. He covers your concerns therein.

See, I think Jimmy Akin would almost back me up. The article is concerned about public drinking laws. That is a law that is both just and legitimate. He doesn’t treat whether or not it would be immoral to drink in the privacy of one’s home with parental consent, assuming the state has out lawed this. The last sentence of the article is quite telling: “Their (parents) right under natural and thus divine law to direct you in such matters is unambiguous.” It would seem that Akin agrees with me that this matter should be left to parental judgment.

 

[underacloud]

No, public drinking is only one aspect. He discusses the issue of underage drinking and the right of the state to make laws entirely separately from the public drinking issue.

Like I said, there are arguments that can be made in your favour, but to read that piece by Akin and to conclude that he would agree with you is mind boggling. But you could always write to him. And/or ask your question in the ask an apologist section of this forum.

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

To the op. Do you think it would be ok if a 18 year old lives on his own and is therefore not subject to his parents telling him what he can or cannot do decided he can drink in his own home? Is the law violating his rights in any way? Or is it only okay if the kid has his parents permission, even though he does not live under their roof?

 

[Tomdstone]

---

I posted this in ‘Family Life’ but thought this place would be better.

I’m 18 years old and last week I was at my cabin with my family. My uncle offered me a beer and I refused on grounds of obeying civil law. (I live in Michigan and Michigan law prohibits anyone under 21 consuming alcohol except for religious or medicinal purposes ) However, I am now rethinking this position. I understand we have a moral duty to obey just civil laws. However, in the face of unjust laws, “it is legitimate for them (citizens) to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of natural law and the Law of the Gospel.” CCC 2242. While the government obviously has the right to set drinking laws in the public realm, I would reckon it an “abuse of authority” for them to set this restriction on the privacy of me and my family’s home. Ultimately, my parents have the responsibility of raising me, not the government. As the Catechism states, “Following the principle of subsidiarity, larger communities should take care not to usurp the family’s prerogatives or interfere in its life” CCC 2209. By disregarding the judgment of my parent’s, the state oversteps it’s boundaries and wrongfully asserts it’s authority in my familial life. This unjust law is an offense against subsidiarity and therefore need not be obeyed. My parents know far more about me than the state does and I their judgment is much more pertinent in such a trivial matter.

Does anyone agree or disagree? I’d love to here your feedback and comments

Pax Christi,
Michael

IMHO, if you are not violating a moral code, then penal laws do not bind under pain of sin.

 

[EasterJoy]

I would say it is objectively immoral to serve a beer to a toddler. Therefore, the state has a right to condemn it in the home as an objective moral evil. The same could be said for 10 year old. However, you can’t say that an 18 year old drinking a beer is an objective moral evil at all. As matter of act, I think we can agree that an 18 year old drinking a beer is a morally neutral action. Because this is not a morally evil act, the judgment should rest on the parents and the property owners. The state has not right to arbitrarily define a “mature drinking age” when it’s out of it’s own jurisdiction. Unless you can show me how an 18 year old is a morally objectionable act in and of itself, I see no reason why this judgment call should be deflected to the state and not the parents.

PS: I was talking to Lebanese Catholic and women and she told me it was a Maronite tradition to feed arak to the newly baptized children. As a 7th month old, her aunt dipped fingered small drops of this alcoholic beverage into her mouth. Would u consider this objectively immoral? Also, some on this thread of mentioned that kids as young as 7 were allowed to drink watered down wine at dinner in Europe. Would you consider this immoral?

I wouldn’t say it is objectively immoral to give a sip of alcohol to a toddler. Did you know that vanilla extract is typically between 70 and 80 proof? How much vanilla extract do you think a toddler can handle? Of course a child can handle a sip of alcohol without any problem. They do it all of the time, even in households that believe they would NEVER give a drop of alcohol to any under 21, because they have desserts and beverages that have alcoholic flavor extracts in them. Who reads the ingredient list, sees “natural and artificial flavors” and thinks, “aha! a little bit of ethanol there!!” Nobody does, because it is so little alcohol that it makes no difference!

The alcohol abuse and addiction problem in our country is both grave and epidemic in its proportion. That is why the “private property” thing does not impress legislatures. Having said that, the sort of consumption you are talking about would normally be considered a minor transgression of the law. If you drink before you are 21 under the supervision of a parent, in a totally responsible manner that isn’t even seeking a “buzz,” and without modelling drinking to others your age, you are not committing a grave sin. You are being disobedient to a law passed by a legitimate authority that has a legitimate reason to pass the law and that has seen positive results from the law in terms of lives saved.

If you are arguing that justice demands that this law be repealed, you don’t have a leg to stand on. If you are arguing that in your case the transgression violates the letter of the law but does not violate its intention nor dampen its intended effect, I think that you are right. It is a transgression, it is an instance of disobedience, but provided that you aren’t fooling yourself about how above any harm you are yourself, it is a minor one.

Honestly, though, I don’t think this is going to be worth the beer to you. Go somewhere that your parents can give you a beer legally, and I think you’ll agree. Maybe not, but you sound as if breaking a law will make the beer taste worse to you, not better.

That is a good sign, actually. You aren’t hesitating because you want some reputation as a being beyond reproach. You honestly do not want to choose to do the least thing that might so much as annoy a hair on the little finger of the Lord. That is being obedient without being self-righteous. I have a hard time trying to talk you out of that in order to talk you out of foregoing beer for a summer or two.

 

[Moses_the_Black_1]

To the op. Do you think it would be ok if a 18 year old lives on his own and is therefore not subject to his parents telling him what he can or cannot do decided he can drink in his own home? Is the law violating his rights in any way? Or is it only okay if the kid has his parents permission, even though he does not live under their roof?

This is the case in many US states. 18 year olds can drink alcohol on private property only if they have parental consent. I think it’s legitimate for the state to say any person under 21 is not “mature” enough to drink on their own, regardless of the setting. This law does not violate subsidiarity and deflects judgment to his parents, regardless of where he lives. Therefore, considering the laws within the US, I still think he would need some sort of parental permission in order to morally disobey this law.

 

[mrbean007]

---

I posted this in ‘Family Life’ but thought this place would be better.

I’m 18 years old and last week I was at my cabin with my family. My uncle offered me a beer and I refused on grounds of obeying civil law. (I live in Michigan and Michigan law prohibits anyone under 21 consuming alcohol except for religious or medicinal purposes ) However, I am now rethinking this position. I understand we have a moral duty to obey just civil laws. However, in the face of unjust laws, “it is legitimate for them (citizens) to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of natural law and the Law of the Gospel.” CCC 2242. While the government obviously has the right to set drinking laws in the public realm, I would reckon it an “abuse of authority” for them to set this restriction on the privacy of me and my family’s home. Ultimately, my parents have the responsibility of raising me, not the government. As the Catechism states, “Following the principle of subsidiarity, larger communities should take care not to usurp the family’s prerogatives or interfere in its life” CCC 2209. By disregarding the judgment of my parent’s, the state oversteps it’s boundaries and wrongfully asserts it’s authority in my familial life. This unjust law is an offense against subsidiarity and therefore need not be obeyed. My parents know far more about me than the state does and I their judgment is much more pertinent in such a trivial matter.

Does anyone agree or disagree? I’d love to here your feedback and comments

Pax Christi,
Michael

In my opinion, it’s not a grave sin. Venial, perhaps, because we are supposed to give due deference to the law, but a good case can be made that it’s unrealistic to worry about drinking laws within a private home (in fact, I think that at least in some states, drinking laws only apply to public drinking; but don’t quote me on that.) It’s a stretch to say the law is “unjust,” because the law doesn’t require you to do anything that violates your conscience, nor does it place an overly onerous burden on your ability to live a healthy life. Is the law silly? Yes, I think so (it’s a carryover from the Puritans.)

 

[Moses_the_Black_1]

I wouldn’t say it is objectively immoral to give a sip of alcohol to a toddler. Did you know that vanilla extract is typically between 70 and 80 proof? How much vanilla extract do you think a toddler can handle? Of course a child can handle a sip of alcohol without any problem. They do it all of the time, even in households that believe they would NEVER give a drop of alcohol to any under 21, because they have desserts and beverages that have alcoholic flavor extracts in them. Who reads the ingredient list, sees “natural and artificial flavors” and thinks, “aha! a little bit of ethanol there!!” Nobody does, because it is so little alcohol that it makes no difference!

The alcohol abuse and addiction problem in our country is both grave and epidemic in its proportion. That is why the “private property” thing does not impress legislatures. Having said that, the sort of consumption you are talking about would normally be considered a minor transgression of the law. If you drink before you are 21 under the supervision of a parent, in a totally responsible manner that isn’t even seeking a “buzz,” and without modelling drinking to others your age, you are not committing a grave sin. You are being disobedient to a law passed by a legitimate authority that has a legitimate reason to pass the law and that has seen positive results from the law in terms of lives saved.

If you are arguing that justice demands that this law be repealed, you don’t have a leg to stand on. If you are arguing that in your case the transgression violates the letter of the law but does not violate its intention nor dampen its intended effect, I think that you are right. It is a transgression, it is an instance of disobedience, but provided that you aren’t fooling yourself about how above any harm you are yourself, it is a minor one.

Honestly, though, I don’t think this is going to be worth the beer to you. Go somewhere that your parents can give you a beer legally, and I think you’ll agree. Maybe not, but you sound as if breaking a law will make the beer taste worse to you, not better.

That is a good sign, actually. You aren’t hesitating because you want some reputation as a being beyond reproach. You honestly do not want to choose to do the least thing that might so much as annoy a hair on the little finger of the Lord. That is being obedient without being self-righteous. I have a hard time trying to talk you out of that in order to talk you out of foregoing beer for a summer or two.

I agree, the state has legitimate authority and reasoning to set drinking laws. However, I still cannot accept that the opinion of the state should overrule the opinion of my parents. This is a private matter. Once I leave this privacy, I commit an immoral action. But I can see no fault in either drinking a beer under my parents supervision or drinking a beer with my friend under his parent’s supervision and my parent’s consent. In this very private matter, the state needs to butt it’s head out. I will continue to say again and again that the best judgment on whether or not I can drink alcohol at this age is my parents. And, according to what I’ve learned about subsidiarity, this decision needs to rest with them, not the state. In this context, the family trumps the state, plain and simple. I’m not trying to make a legal case here. I’m not versed enough in law to do so. Morally, I believe I am justified in having a beer in the contexts I described simply because my family knows me better than those in my state capital. The state has no right to overrule the judgment of my parents in this particular case.

And personally, in allowing kids to drink with their parents, alcohol abuse would be go down. Instead of experimenting with alcohol at parties with drunk teenagers all around, those underage would become familiar with the substance in a safe and comfortable environment with their family. Alcohol then transfers from something to “rage” with to something to enjoy friendly company and special occasions with. I just don’t see the connection between teens drinking with their parents at home and an establishment of alcoholism.

 

[underacloud]

I agree, the state has legitimate authority and reasoning to set drinking laws. However, I still cannot accept that the opinion of the state should overrule the opinion of my parents. This is a private matter. Once I leave this privacy, I commit an immoral action. But I can see no fault in either drinking a beer under my parents supervision or drinking a beer with my friend under his parent’s supervision and my parent’s consent. In this very private matter, the state needs to butt it’s head out. I will continue to say again and again that the best judgment on whether or not I can drink alcohol at this age is my parents. And, according to what I’ve learned about subsidiarity, this decision needs to rest with them, not the state. In this context, the family trumps the state, plain and simple. I’m not trying to make a legal case here. I’m not versed enough in law to do so. Morally, I believe I am justified in having a beer in the contexts I described simply because my family knows me better than those in my state capital. The state has no right to overrule the judgment of my parents in this particular case.

And personally, in allowing kids to drink with their parents, alcohol abuse would be go down. Instead of experimenting with alcohol at parties with drunk teenagers all around, those underage would become familiar with the substance in a safe and comfortable environment with their family. Alcohol then transfers from something to “rage” with to something to enjoy friendly company and special occasions with. I just don’t see the connection between teens drinking with their parents at home and an establishment of alcoholism.

Sorry, but research clearly contradicts your suggestion here.

And the state knows this. You and your parents do not. Which is a good example of why the state does have the right to make laws, and subsidiary does not trump that right.

I think there are arguments that can be made, but this is not the right one.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

In Texas, minor in possession/consumption is legal if the minor is in the presence of a parent, guardian, or spouse.

I don’t see the grave matter in having a beer “underage.”

 

[thistle]

---

I posted this in ‘Family Life’ but thought this place would be better.

I’m 18 years old and last week I was at my cabin with my family. My uncle offered me a beer and I refused on grounds of obeying civil law. (I live in Michigan and Michigan law prohibits anyone under 21 consuming alcohol except for religious or medicinal purposes ) However, I am now rethinking this position. I understand we have a moral duty to obey just civil laws. However, in the face of unjust laws, “it is legitimate for them (citizens) to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of natural law and the Law of the Gospel.” CCC 2242. While the government obviously has the right to set drinking laws in the public realm, I would reckon it an “abuse of authority” for them to set this restriction on the privacy of me and my family’s home. Ultimately, my parents have the responsibility of raising me, not the government. As the Catechism states, “Following the principle of subsidiarity, larger communities should take care not to usurp the family’s prerogatives or interfere in its life” CCC 2209. By disregarding the judgment of my parent’s, the state oversteps it’s boundaries and wrongfully asserts it’s authority in my familial life. This unjust law is an offense against subsidiarity and therefore need not be obeyed. My parents know far more about me than the state does and I their judgment is much more pertinent in such a trivial matter.

Does anyone agree or disagree? I’d love to here your feedback and comments

Pax Christi,
Michael

Drinking laws do not apply to your home.

 

[Isca]

If you consider that in other countries the legal age for drinking alcohol is lower (18 in the UK, for instance) and that you could come here and quite properly buy/consume alcohol in public, then you may think differently about occasionally drinking at home as an 18-year-old in the USA!

You wouldn’t attempt to buy alcohol in a bar in Michigan knowing you were underage, but this is a different issue altogether.

 

[Mumbles140]

In Texas, minor in possession/consumption is legal if the minor is in the presence of a parent, guardian, or spouse.

I don’t see the grave matter in having a beer “underage.”

The same in Virginia - the state allows parents to raise their kids as they see fit while at home. If you were to go out in public after drinking, you could be charged (and I believe your parents could as well). But if you are having a beer at home or a little wine with dinner (like a lot of European transplant families I know allow), you are not breaking the law.

 

[bobballen_18]

OK, so I realize this is just anecdotal, but I would like to share my “story” anyway: I grew up in a family which regularly saw my parents drink alcohol, and in a family which served me and my six siblings alcohol from a young age. When we were younger, it was usually just a little wine with Sunday dinner, and my dad would usually water it down. As we grew older, usually once we were teenagers, we were allowed to have small amounts of all kinds of alcohol, not watered down, and definitely later on in high school, the amount we were allowed increased. Of course, with seven kids, by the time the youngest was later on in high school, my dad was allowing him to have a full beer or something here and then. In no way was this harmful to us, our peers, or anyone our family hung out with. It was always at home, and my parents, if we were at a trusted friend’s house (so still private property), at an appropriate age (like, high school) would have given consent to consume alcohol (although such situations rarely happened).

We are all now grown up. My youngest sibling will turn 21 within a couple weeks. None of us are alcohol addicts; none of us go out and get tipsy all the time and especially not drunk (although with a few of us, it has happened before, I admit). When we drink now, it is usually an alcoholic beverage with dinner or just enjoying one in the evening, or a few drinks (within reason) in social settings/gatherings at home (or even occasionally in public, since we are all of age now).

Needless to say, generally I agree with the OP in that the parents are the best ones to make the decision on private property. That being said, I can understand how one can look at the statistics in America regarding binge drinking/underage drinking, and can say that the government is legitimately setting rules against underage drinking with parents’ consent on private property. In the right family setting, though, it is clear there is nothing amiss with parents letting their kids drink from a young age, even if it is against the law. To add to my “anecdote”, all of my siblings and I are law-abiding citizens and are not overly “casual” with the law (aside from the obvious things right now regarding abortion and now same-sex marriage).

I guess my only point in relating to you my story is that me and my family (and many of my family’s friends) are living proof that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with young kids drinking, and that it will not inevitably lead to binge drinking and whatnot. I will admit that we all drank more in college than before or after, and that there were occasions on which they drank too much, and I don’t want to excuse that behavior, but it really lessens the gravity of it when you are only with friends and not like, going out driving or something afterwards, only going to bed at home. And I suppose some will use that against me to say, well, that must be a result of them drinking from a young age… fine, go ahead. But I think being away from parents, and going out and drinking with friends at college is a little different situation. Again, my main thing was that I think there’s really nothing wrong with parents providing alcohol to their children on private property and according to their age, providing they have an adequate understanding of the appropriate usage of alcohol.

Obviously it’s great to be able to have fun without alcohol, but there’s nothing wrong with drinking alcohol in moderation with the intent to simply “be joyful” in your fellowship with family and friends. For me and my family, it added more joy to the joy which was usually already present! Drinking is a very “Catholic” thing to do, and I wish more people could be exposed to appropriate drinking from a young age, or at least that from a young age they could be exposed to the idea that alcohol is something that can/should be legitimately enjoyed. I suppose that every family is different; some families I think are exposed to that idea but still never drink, and I guess that’s fine too. Again, for my family it’s really just engrained and I will never be convinced that drinking from a young age is inherently bad for the kids - rather, it depends on the situation, and in many situations it is good.