Split: If you are addicted, is it a sin?

[Bill_7154]

Please stop reciting the “think speak” mantra claim. I don’t belong to AA and when I said “normal” I used it in a generic sense, not some “normie” word that I personally have never even heard used.

If “regular habitual drinking equates to alcoholism” than your uncle was an alcoholic because he “drank regularly”, but you say he wasn’t alcoholic. Which one is it? You have been all over the map reconstructing terms and usage. I agree some can drink again, you write as if I have denied that. This is getting circular and I see no headway being gained.

The word alcoholic is not a medical definition. It’s used in AA and by drug and alcohol counselors and the general public but does not have a specific definition as far as I know. I have heard it defined as ‘someone who can not drink in safety’ and a bunch of other ways.

When it comes to doctors and their labeling of people who drink excessively there are, to my knowledge, 2 general catagories: alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence.

Disease model or not, I think these 2 catagories are useful (and it may be useful to have additional catagories if one is concerned about assisting people who drink excessively or for the wrong reasons or whatever- for example a person’s son or daughter and their relationship to alcohol. Maybe their drinking doesn’t rise to the specific criteria that is used to define alcohol abuse, but as a parent you may notice that your child (let’s say very late teens, like 19 or 20 yrs old) takes a drink or 2 alone at times as a means of coping with anxiety. This may not be alcohol abuse but it may certainly be problematic behavior. I’m not a big fan of labels, but recognizing such a pattern early on with ones child could save them and the poeple who love her a whole lot of pain and suffering.

I also think that recongizing social norms within societies sub groups is useful. College students, not sure what % of them, but it’s not small, abuse the heck out of alcohol. Getting drunk on weekends by many college students is considered normal, and while probably not a healthy thing, I think it should be looked at within it’s context. Drinking beer bongs or beer funnels and playing drinking games is ‘normal’ for a fair % of college students. If 30 year olds are drinking that way I would be willing to bet they have a problem. With the college students who drink that way, a large % of them slow down and stop drinking that way in their early 20’s.

The way the USA deals with drinking, the age limit and the way that children are introduced to alcohol I think it problematic when compared to many other countries. And as adults we in the USA suffer for it. In some countries i think the legal drinking age is like 15 or something. In any event, in some countries the first 20 times, or maybe the first 50 or 100 times a youth drinks is in the context of having dinner with their family and having a small ammt of wine with their family with dinner. No one is ‘getting drunk’. Then on holidays they are at larger family gatherings and it’s the same thing, everyone, including the teens, are drinking a small ammt of wine along with their family and NO ONE is getting drunk.

Compare that to the USA where I think the vast majory of teens first 20 or 50 experiences with alcohol are behind their parents backs with other teens, and often times they are getting drunk. Maybe not the first few times, or maybe not even the first dozen times, but youth drinking in the USA is done with other youths, away from their families, hidden from adults (with exceptions). I think this is an example of forbidden fruit and think that it is one of, if not the main reason, we have such a problem with alcohol in the USA.

I have an infant child and that is NOT going to be his experience in developing a relationship to alcohol. Drinking with other teens at high school parties behind my back. I am going to introduce him to alcohol as a substance to be used in moderation to enance plesant and happy family gatherings. Where the adults are drinking 1-2 glasses of wine over the course of an entire evening, and on specail holiday occasions he will be allowed to have a sip of wine as part of that celebration of family coming together to share happiness, to celebrate special holidays. And I will start educating him about alcohol from a very early age. Something to be respected, something that is potentially very, very dangerous. I will have a bond with him where he will not seek to do sneaky things behind my back. He will feel comfortable coming to me to talk about other children who he may know of from school who drink or use marijuana. I will teach him why they are doing what they are doing and why that is not a useful way to live, nor will he have God’s respect, or the respect of a good potential girlfriend if he were to conduct himself in that manner. As well as the many other reasons it isn’t wise to use alcohol that way.

Maybe those statement will create a lot of controvercy here. That’s OK by me. I think certain European countries youth don’t drink to wild excess like the youth in the USA do. And I would like to learn from their example. So that as he grows up he isn’t getting drunk at college parties, he isn’t interested in doing so. He will know what the mild light glow feels like from having small ammt’s of wine and will learn that this is the way alcohol is meant to be used, and within the context of family celebrations and situations like that. This way, when he’s off at college and at parties he will not be ‘slamming’ beers and ‘doing shots’. And he will not be interested in young ladies who are doing that sort of thing. It is crass but in the USA it is normal. Passing out and acting like a jackass is not what God wants, but this is commonplace at colleges all across the country. I think alcohol is one of the usa’s largest social problems and I think it is connected to the way we attempt to shield youth from alcohol- of course unsuccessfully. So when they finally get their hands on it, since they never learned how to handle it responsibly, they drink to significant excess and all sorts of risky and immoral and dangerous things happen which are seen as ‘fun’ by the participants.

I want my son’s ‘fun’ with alcohol in college to be sharing a glass of wine with a classy girl whom he respects and where the girls parents (assuming it’s not the first few dates) know him and respect him and recognize him as a man of God with class and honor.

I know I side tracked things there, the thoughts of the huge problems we have with young people and alcohol abuse is terrible and is not customary worldwide. If there are other primary reasons other than the one I suggested I would be interested in knowing what it/they are.
Thanks.

 

[johnnyjones]

The word alcoholic is not a medical definition. It’s used in AA and by drug and alcohol counselors and the general public but does not have a specific definition as far as I know. I have heard it defined as ‘someone who can not drink in safety’ and a bunch of other ways.

When it comes to doctors and their labeling of people who drink excessively there are, to my knowledge, 2 general catagories: alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence.

Disease model or not, I think these 2 catagories are useful (and it may be useful to have additional catagories if one is concerned about assisting people who drink excessively or for the wrong reasons or whatever- for example a person’s son or daughter and their relationship to alcohol. Maybe their drinking doesn’t rise to the specific criteria that is used to define alcohol abuse, but as a parent you may notice that your child (let’s say very late teens, like 19 or 20 yrs old) takes a drink or 2 alone at times as a means of coping with anxiety. This may not be alcohol abuse but it may certainly be problematic behavior. I’m not a big fan of labels, but recognizing such a pattern early on with ones child could save them and the poeple who love her a whole lot of pain and suffering.

I also think that recongizing social norms within societies sub groups is useful. College students, not sure what % of them, but it’s not small, abuse the heck out of alcohol. Getting drunk on weekends by many college students is considered normal, and while probably not a healthy thing, I think it should be looked at within it’s context. Drinking beer bongs or beer funnels and playing drinking games is ‘normal’ for a fair % of college students. If 30 year olds are drinking that way I would be willing to bet they have a problem. With the college students who drink that way, a large % of them slow down and stop drinking that way in their early 20’s.

The way the USA deals with drinking, the age limit and the way that children are introduced to alcohol I think it problematic when compared to many other countries. And as adults we in the USA suffer for it. In some countries i think the legal drinking age is like 15 or something. In any event, in some countries the first 20 times, or maybe the first 50 or 100 times a youth drinks is in the context of having dinner with their family and having a small ammt of wine with their family with dinner. No one is ‘getting drunk’. Then on holidays they are at larger family gatherings and it’s the same thing, everyone, including the teens, are drinking a small ammt of wine along with their family and NO ONE is getting drunk.

Compare that to the USA where I think the vast majory of teens first 20 or 50 experiences with alcohol are behind their parents backs with other teens, and often times they are getting drunk. Maybe not the first few times, or maybe not even the first dozen times, but youth drinking in the USA is done with other youths, away from their families, hidden from adults (with exceptions). I think this is an example of forbidden fruit and think that it is one of, if not the main reason, we have such a problem with alcohol in the USA.

I have an infant child and that is NOT going to be his experience in developing a relationship to alcohol. Drinking with other teens at high school parties behind my back. I am going to introduce him to alcohol as a substance to be used in moderation to enance plesant and happy family gatherings. Where the adults are drinking 1-2 glasses of wine over the course of an entire evening, and on specail holiday occasions he will be allowed to have a sip of wine as part of that celebration of family coming together to share happiness, to celebrate special holidays. And I will start educating him about alcohol from a very early age. Something to be respected, something that is potentially very, very dangerous. I will have a bond with him where he will not seek to do sneaky things behind my back. He will feel comfortable coming to me to talk about other children who he may know of from school who drink or use marijuana. I will teach him why they are doing what they are doing and why that is not a useful way to live, nor will he have God’s respect, or the respect of a good potential girlfriend if he were to conduct himself in that manner. As well as the many other reasons it isn’t wise to use alcohol that way.

Maybe those statement will create a lot of controvercy here. That’s OK by me. I think certain European countries youth don’t drink to wild excess like the youth in the USA do. And I would like to learn from their example. So that as he grows up he isn’t getting drunk at college parties, he isn’t interested in doing so. He will know what the mild light glow feels like from having small ammt’s of wine and will learn that this is the way alcohol is meant to be used, and within the context of family celebrations and situations like that. This way, when he’s off at college and at parties he will not be ‘slamming’ beers and ‘doing shots’. And he will not be interested in young ladies who are doing that sort of thing. It is crass but in the USA it is normal. Passing out and acting like a jackass is not what God wants, but this is commonplace at colleges all across the country. I think alcohol is one of the usa’s largest social problems and I think it is connected to the way we attempt to shield youth from alcohol- of course unsuccessfully. So when they finally get their hands on it, since they never learned how to handle it responsibly, they drink to significant excess and all sorts of risky and immoral and dangerous things happen which are seen as ‘fun’ by the participants.

I want my son’s ‘fun’ with alcohol in college to be sharing a glass of wine with a classy girl whom he respects and where the girls parents (assuming it’s not the first few dates) know him and respect him and recognize him as a man of God with class and honor.

I know I side tracked things there, the thoughts of the huge problems we have with young people and alcohol abuse is terrible and is not customary worldwide. If there are other primary reasons other than the one I suggested I would be interested in knowing what it/they are.
Thanks.

What about “alcoholism” as a medical term?

 

[PJM]

=Annabelle Marie;9697619]"Actually both my Priest and Mother Angelica would disagree with you. In order for something to be a sin, according to my priest and confessor, you have to have free will in the matter. By the very nature of true addiction you do not have free will. "

This is a split from another thread. The person quoted up above says that if you do not have free will in the matter…then not a sin…not even a venial sin as I tried to clarify that with them.

Also, it appears that the theory is that it has to be a physical addiction…not a mental one…like porn is a mental addiction but smoking or heroin use is a physical addiction and not a sin as the person does not have free will.

What does everyone say?

NO,

“a Mortal sin” YES! a “sin” NO.

Cupability may be lessened by a “sin” in nature and fact is always a sin. ONLY one’s cupabilty degree of guilt can change" not the nature of the act from “bad” to “good” or “nutural.”

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Bill_7154]

What about “alcoholism” as a medical term?

I believe it’s used more or less interchangably with alcohol dependence.

 

[johnnyjones]

I believe it’s used more or less interchangably with alcohol dependence.

Here is just one on line medical dictionary using alcoholism.

medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/alcoholism

 

[CopticChristian]

This is what I thought, that I did it myself, of my own sheer willpower. I didn’t give any credit to God.

-Tim-

Timothy,

Sounds like you have a paradigm of your own.

 

[Christmastwin]

Timothy,

Sounds like you have a paradigm of your own.

LOL

 

[CopticChristian]

Here is just one on line medical dictionary using alcoholism.

medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/alcoholism

Johnny,

Here you see the same think speak of the 12 steps. You want to accept that? Ok…Do you also accept the DSM changing the notion that Homosexuality is not a disorder and the new language for LGBT? That is what you are doing. These definitions unfortunately do not equate to reality. I reject the DSM. I reject this definition. I think that since this thread is about sin a change in focus would help that woul shed light on it.

Jesus Christ the Bearer of the Water of Life says

Addiction and Recovery is being exhanged for Sin and Salvation

Veritatis Splendor says that true freedom is freedom from fear by aligning our Wills with the Will of God. To do God’s Will is what we were created for…so then look at The Twelve and Twelve below…Recall that the disease gets translated into character defects=SIN…and look at the sins that need addressing and what they generate…

(Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, p. 46)

On page 48, the author states that there are several lists in use. Then he describes a checklist based on the Seven Deadly Sins.

“Now let’s ponder the need for a list of the more glaring personality defects all of us have in varying degrees. . .

“To avoid falling into confusion over the names these defects should be called, let’s take a universally recognized list of major human failings–the Seven Deadly Sins of PRIDE, GREED, LUST, ANGER, GLUTTONY, ENVY and SLOTH. . . .(Seven liabilities)
“All of these failings generate **FEAR, a soul-sickness in its own right.”(**Eighth liability)

Close but no cigar, because as the site I provided you about 12 steps to another Gospel misses the point…the religion of AA misses the following…are you ready…

This man made religion of AA, like all man made religions falls apart at the seams because they miss the obvious…Gluttony is the sin that causes too much drinking…duh

newadvent.org/cathen/06590a.htm

(**From Lat. gluttire, to swallow, to gulp down), the excessive indulgence in food and drink. **The moral deformity discernible in this vice lies in its defiance of the order postulated by reason, which prescribes necessity as the measure of indulgence in eating and drinking. This deordination, according to the teaching of the Angelic Doctor, may happen in five ways which are set forth in the scholastic verse: “Prae-propere, laute, nimis, ardenter, studiose” or, according to the apt rendering of Father Joseph Rickably: too soon, too expensively, too much, too eagerly, too daintily. Clearly one who uses food or drink in such a way as to injure his health or impair the mental equipment needed for the discharge of his duties, is guilty of the sin of gluttony.

If Gluttony is one of sins you need to fix, did you notice that AA misses the point that this is the sin of INTEMPERANCE…drinking too much…Much of the language of the courts, AA, etc calls drinking too much chronic intemperance…duh

So what is the problem here, get a sponsor, read the book, go to meetings, learn the disease that is not a disease and then work on your sine or perhaps checking into what is really missing…Peele calls them values or the secular world calls them ethics and you can develop these on your own…so look at the human virtues…

I. THE HUMAN VIRTUES

1804 Human virtues are firm attitudes, stable dispositions, habitual perfections of intellect and will that govern our actions, order our passions, and guide our conduct according to reason and faith. They make possible ease, self-mastery, and joy in leading a morally good life. The virtuous man is he who freely practices the good.

There are 4 cardinal virtues…

The cardinal virtues

1805 Four virtues play a pivotal role and accordingly are called “cardinal”; all the others are grouped around them. They are: prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance. "If anyone loves righteousness, [Wisdom’s] labors are virtues; for she teaches temperance and prudence, justice, and courage."64 These virtues are praised under other names in many passages of Scripture.

1806 Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it; "the prudent man looks where he is going."65 "Keep sane and sober for your prayers."66 Prudence is “right reason in action,” writes St. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle.67 It is not to be confused with timidity or fear, nor with duplicity or dissimulation. It is called auriga virtutum (the charioteer of the virtues); it guides the other virtues by setting rule and measure. It is prudence that immediately guides the judgment of conscience. The prudent man determines and directs his conduct in accordance with this judgment. With the help of this virtue we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid.

1807 Justice is the moral virtue that consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbor. Justice toward God is called the “virtue of religion.” Justice toward men disposes one to respect the rights of each and to establish in human relationships the harmony that promotes equity with regard to persons and to the common good. The just man, often mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures, is distinguished by habitual right thinking and the uprightness of his conduct toward his neighbor. "You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor."68 "Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven."69

1808 Fortitude is the moral virtue that ensures firmness in difficulties and constancy in the pursuit of the good.** It strengthens the resolve to resist temptations and to overcome obstacles in the moral life.** The virtue of fortitude enables one to conquer fear, even fear of death, and to face trials and persecutions. It disposes one even to renounce and sacrifice his life in defense of a just cause. "The Lord is my strength and my song."70 "In the world you have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world."71

1809 Temperance is the moral virtue that moderates the attraction of pleasures and provides balance in the use of created goods. It ensures the will’s mastery over instincts and keeps desires within the limits of what is honorable. The temperate person directs the sensitive appetites toward what is good and maintains a healthy discretion: "Do not follow your inclination and strength, walking according to the desires of your heart."72 Temperance is often praised in the Old Testament: "Do not follow your base desires, but restrain your appetites."73 In the New Testament it is called “moderation” or “sobriety.” We ought "to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world."74

Stanton Peele, PhD says that values are the means to fight addiction and if you don’t have them get them.

The Church says that you should form you conscience, and with the grace of God you can establish yourself with the virtues to do the Will of God. Do you not think that a good dose of Prudence, Justice, Fortitude and Temperance would go a long way towards solving the problem of addiction? I do…and how do you get these virtues…are you ready…

The moral virtues are acquired by human effort. They are the fruit and seed of morally good acts; they dispose all the powers of the human being for communion with divine love.

So are you powerless by no means we are powerful for to us was given the utterance of Scripture, to us was given the divine Son, who adopted us and made us fellow heirs, are we to go on sinning that grace may abound, by no means for to us was given the grace, divine sonship to be what it is we are to be and the means by which we can be…and the Father lets us do it through Human Effort…

So AA misses the mark in trying to direct anyone to solve their sin problems and the Church is correct. Addiction is sin, never has been and never will be a disease…

Addiction and Recovery unfortunately have forsaken Sin and Salvation for in God, with grace, by Faith you have been saved…and you have to work it, by human effort to have the goods to do what is right…The Will of God…it works if you work it.

Addiction is sin plain and simple

 

[Christmastwin]

Johnny,

Here you see the same think speak of the 12 steps. You want to accept that? Ok…Do you also accept the DSM changing the notion that Homosexuality is not a disorder and the new language for LGBT? That is what you are doing. These definitions unfortunately do not equate to reality. I reject the DSM. I reject this definition. I think that since this thread is about sin a change in focus would help that woul shed light on it.

Jesus Christ the Bearer of the Water of Life says

Addiction and Recovery is being exhanged for Sin and Salvation

Veritatis Splendor says that true freedom is freedom from fear by aligning our Wills with the Will of God. To do God’s Will is what we were created for…so then look at The Twelve and Twelve below…Recall that the disease gets translated into character defects=SIN…and look at the sins that need addressing and what they generate…

Close but no cigar, because as the site I provided you about 12 steps to another Gospel misses the point…the religion of AA misses the following…are you ready…

This man made religion of AA, like all man made religions falls apart at the seams because they miss the obvious…Gluttony is the sin that causes too much drinking…duh

newadvent.org/cathen/06590a.htm

If Gluttony is one of sins you need to fix, did you notice that AA misses the point that this is the sin of INTEMPERANCE…drinking too much…Much of the language of the courts, AA, etc calls drinking too much chronic intemperance…duh

So what is the problem here, get a sponsor, read the book, go to meetings, learn the disease that is not a disease and then work on your sine or perhaps checking into what is really missing…Peele calls them values or the secular world calls them ethics and you can develop these on your own…so look at the human virtues…

There are 4 cardinal virtues…

The cardinal virtues

Stanton Peele, PhD says that values are the means to fight addiction and if you don’t have them get them.

The Church says that you should form you conscience, and with the grace of God you can establish yourself with the virtues to do the Will of God. Do you not think that a good dose of Prudence, Justice, Fortitude and Temperance would go a long way towards solving the problem of addiction? I do…and how do you get these virtues…are you ready…

So are you powerless by no means we are powerful for to us was given the utterance of Scripture, to us was given the divine Son, who adopted us and made us fellow heirs, are we to go on sinning that grace may abound, by no means for to us was given the grace, divine sonship to be what it is we are to be and the means by which we can be…and the Father lets us do it through Human Effort…

So AA misses the mark in trying to direct anyone to solve their sin problems and the Church is correct. Addiction is sin, never has been and never will be a disease…

Addiction and Recovery unfortunately have forsaken Sin and Salvation for in God, with grace, by Faith you have been saved…and you have to work it, by human effort to have the goods to do what is right…The Will of God…it works if you work it.

You could have save a lot of time by posting this about 100 posts ago.

 

[CopticChristian]

You could have save a lot of time by posting this about 100 posts ago.

Christ,

Are you saying that you agree that

Addiction is a sin and not a disease?

and

What stopped you from formulating addiction as sin as I did?

 

[Christmastwin]

Christ,

Are you saying that you agree that

Addiction is a sin and not a disease?

and

What stopped you from formulating addiction as sin as I did?

You must have missed in one of my first posts where I agreed. You got too wrapped up in me using Richard Rohr’s name and attacked me for that.

I am back to the Catholic faith for all of six months tops. That’s why I hadn’t thought of sin. Not until I listened to Fr. Barron did it start to cross my mind.

My sister is sober and uses her Catholic faith. If you would stop and let people talk for a minute you might give someone a chance to explain their views. I don’t begrudge anyone getting sober however they need to. If it is causing a problem in their lives, they need to address it. Period.

I don’t agree in mandating AA to anyone nor forcing people to go to rehab.

I love AA. My faith and AA go very well together.

This is my last post on the subject.

God bless.

 

[Edmundus1581]

So AA misses the mark in trying to direct anyone to solve their sin problems and the Church is correct. Addiction is sin, never has been and never will be a disease…

Addiction is sin plain and simple

The Church has never said that addiction is sin, and She has never said that addiction is not a disease.

Your only source for this as Church teaching is a few words from an unofficial document on another subject. Words which you have conveniently removed from their context:

Addiction and Recovery is being exhanged for Sin and Salvation

I addressed this previously, here, in direct response to you. I will reproduce my whole post.

---

You have found a valid resource, and deserve to have these points answered. My response follows.

Firstly, there should be a strong presumption against finding that the Church has rejected Alcoholics Anonymous, because AA is well known in Catholic circles, has been known for 70 years, and many priests, religious and laity are active members, and encourage Catholic alcoholics to follow the program, and still do so. For example, Fr Vincent Serpa, answers the question Can a Catholic go to Alcoholics Anonymous? with a firm yes. If one finds a document that appears to reject AA then it needs to be looked at closely to see exactly what it is saying.

Now, let’s look at the document.

1. It is about the New Age phenomenon. Twelve-step programs get only two passing mentions in it. No one could suggest that twelve-step programs have much to do with the New Age. The only relevance of the document then is where some aspects of New Age overlap with some aspects of twelve-stepping. It should be noted that the document itself says that many aspects of New Age also overlap with Catholicism. It’s not intrinsically wrong to overlap with New Age.

From the introduction:

The present study is concerned with the complex phenomenon of “New Age” which is influencing many aspects of contemporary culture.

Also, please note that it is largely informational, rather than doctrinal. It is not a syllabus of errors.

1. Again from the introduction:

The study is a provisional report.

Note: emphasis in the original.

So, it should not be read as a formal statement from the Church on anything. It is a provisional report only. As the two references to twelve-steps and addictions are only minor details, one should definitely not read them as formal statements from the church. They could well be removed from a subsequent report.

1. The first passage about twelve step programs is:

Advertising connected with New Age covers a wide range of practices as acupuncture, biofeedback, chiropractic, kinesiology, homeopathy, iridology, massage and various kinds of “bodywork” (such as orgonomy, Feldenkrais, reflexology, Rolfing, polarity massage, therapeutic touch etc.), meditation and visualisation, nutritional therapies, psychic healing, various kinds of herbal medicine, healing by crystals, metals, music or colours, reincarnation therapies and, finally, twelve-step programmes and self-help groups.(25) The source of healing is said to be within ourselves, something we reach when we are in touch with our inner energy or cosmic energy.

This reads as a comprehensive “background information” list only. It is not saying that every item here is contrary to Catholicism. For instance, Catholics can have massages, see a chiropractor, attend “self help” groups, etc. However, I would say that it is just plain wrong to include twelve-step programs in this list. “The source of healing is said to be within ourselves” is in contrast to “Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity”. In addition, the strong emphasis in AA on admitting wrongs and making amends is distinctly un-New Age. Some AA’ers are New Ageers, and most aren’t.

1. The second relevant passage is:

New Age imports Eastern religious practices piecemeal and re- interprets them to suit Westerners; this involves a rejection of the language of sin and salvation, replacing it with the morally neutral language of addiction and recovery.

Again, 12-step programs are not New Age, they are not “Eastern religious practices”, and they are not “morally neutral”. Whatever is intended by this passage it should not be read as a rejection of 12-step programs.

I cannot provide you with a single authoritative reference from the highest sources saying that AA is acceptable for Catholics, however, as I said previously, the widespread acceptance, recommendation and use of them by Catholics, including the clergy, would indicate against reading two passing references from a provisional document on another subject, as condemnation.

 

[Edmundus1581]

You must have missed in one of my first posts where I agreed. You got too wrapped up in me using Richard Rohr’s name and attacked me for that.

I am back to the Catholic faith for all of six months tops. That’s why I hadn’t thought of sin. Not until I listened to Fr. Barron did it start to cross my mind.

My sister is sober and uses her Catholic faith. If you would stop and let people talk for a minute you might give someone a chance to explain their views. I don’t begrudge anyone getting sober however they need to. If it is causing a problem in their lives, they need to address it. Period.

I don’t agree in mandating AA to anyone nor forcing people to go to rehab.

I love AA. My faith and AA go very well together.

This is my last post on the subject.

God bless.

Good for you, getting sober and returning to the faith. Thank you for your contributions here.

I love AA (etc…) too! And so do my confessor and doctor.

 

[CopticChristian]

The Church has never said that addiction is sin, and She has never said that addiction is not a disease.

Your only source for this as Church teaching is a few words from an unofficial document on another subject. Words which you have conveniently removed from their context:

I addressed this previously, here, in direct response to you. I will reproduce my whole post.

---

You have found a valid resource, and deserve to have these points answered. My response follows.

Firstly, there should be a strong presumption against finding that the Church has rejected Alcoholics Anonymous, because AA is well known in Catholic circles, has been known for 70 years, and many priests, religious and laity are active members, and encourage Catholic alcoholics to follow the program, and still do so. For example, Fr Vincent Serpa, answers the question Can a Catholic go to Alcoholics Anonymous? with a firm yes. If one finds a document that appears to reject AA then it needs to be looked at closely to see exactly what it is saying.

Now, let’s look at the document.

1. It is about the New Age phenomenon. Twelve-step programs get only two passing mentions in it. No one could suggest that twelve-step programs have much to do with the New Age. The only relevance of the document then is where some aspects of New Age overlap with some aspects of twelve-stepping. It should be noted that the document itself says that many aspects of New Age also overlap with Catholicism. It’s not intrinsically wrong to overlap with New Age.

From the introduction:

Also, please note that it is largely informational, rather than doctrinal. It is not a syllabus of errors.

1. Again from the introduction:

Note: emphasis in the original.

So, it should not be read as a formal statement from the Church on anything. It is a provisional report only. As the two references to twelve-steps and addictions are only minor details, one should definitely not read them as formal statements from the church. They could well be removed from a subsequent report.

1. The first passage about twelve step programs is:

This reads as a comprehensive “background information” list only. It is not saying that every item here is contrary to Catholicism. For instance, Catholics can have massages, see a chiropractor, attend “self help” groups, etc. However, I would say that it is just plain wrong to include twelve-step programs in this list. “The source of healing is said to be within ourselves” is in contrast to “Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity”. In addition, the strong emphasis in AA on admitting wrongs and making amends is distinctly un-New Age. Some AA’ers are New Ageers, and most aren’t.

1. The second relevant passage is:

Again, 12-step programs are not New Age, they are not “Eastern religious practices”, and they are not “morally neutral”. Whatever is intended by this passage it should not be read as a rejection of 12-step programs.

I cannot provide you with a single authoritative reference from the highest sources saying that AA is acceptable for Catholics, however, as I said previously, the widespread acceptance, recommendation and use of them by Catholics, including the clergy, would indicate against reading two passing references from a provisional document on another subject, as condemnation.

Edmundus,

Then you would agree that the Church teaches Sin and Salvation.

 

[CopticChristian]

The Church has never said that addiction is sin, and She has never said that addiction is not a disease.

Your only source for this as Church teaching is a few words from an unofficial document on another subject. Words which you have conveniently removed from their context:

I addressed this previously, here, in direct response to you. I will reproduce my whole post.

---

You have found a valid resource, and deserve to have these points answered. My response follows.

Firstly, there should be a strong presumption against finding that the Church has rejected Alcoholics Anonymous, because AA is well known in Catholic circles, has been known for 70 years, and many priests, religious and laity are active members, and encourage Catholic alcoholics to follow the program, and still do so. For example, Fr Vincent Serpa, answers the question Can a Catholic go to Alcoholics Anonymous? with a firm yes. If one finds a document that appears to reject AA then it needs to be looked at closely to see exactly what it is saying.

Now, let’s look at the document.

1. It is about the New Age phenomenon. Twelve-step programs get only two passing mentions in it. No one could suggest that twelve-step programs have much to do with the New Age. The only relevance of the document then is where some aspects of New Age overlap with some aspects of twelve-stepping. It should be noted that the document itself says that many aspects of New Age also overlap with Catholicism. It’s not intrinsically wrong to overlap with New Age.

From the introduction:

Also, please note that it is largely informational, rather than doctrinal. It is not a syllabus of errors.

1. Again from the introduction:

Note: emphasis in the original.

So, it should not be read as a formal statement from the Church on anything. It is a provisional report only. As the two references to twelve-steps and addictions are only minor details, one should definitely not read them as formal statements from the church. They could well be removed from a subsequent report.

1. The first passage about twelve step programs is:

This reads as a comprehensive “background information” list only. It is not saying that every item here is contrary to Catholicism. For instance, Catholics can have massages, see a chiropractor, attend “self help” groups, etc. However, I would say that it is just plain wrong to include twelve-step programs in this list. “The source of healing is said to be within ourselves” is in contrast to “Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity”. In addition, the strong emphasis in AA on admitting wrongs and making amends is distinctly un-New Age. Some AA’ers are New Ageers, and most aren’t.

1. The second relevant passage is:

Again, 12-step programs are not New Age, they are not “Eastern religious practices”, and they are not “morally neutral”. Whatever is intended by this passage it should not be read as a rejection of 12-step programs.

I cannot provide you with a single authoritative reference from the highest sources saying that AA is acceptable for Catholics, however, as I said previously, the widespread acceptance, recommendation and use of them by Catholics, including the clergy, would indicate against reading two passing references from a provisional document on another subject, as condemnation.

Edmundus,

I am sure you agreed that the Church teaches sin and salvation.

You would agree that there is disagreement on the notion that Alcoholism/addiction is a disease.

You would agree that AA/12 steps have Protestant roots.

You would agree that all that I provided from the Catechism is true and the basis of our Catholic Faith and that through human effort virtues can be developed.

You would agree that the Catholic Encyclopedia says nothing about alcoholism as disease and mentions only that alcohol is a drug.

newadvent.org/cathen/01274a.htm

You would also agree that the US Supreme Court has ruled that AA/12 steps are a religion.

You would agree that the Church says nothing about AA/12 steps for or against and the same is true for Mormonism, 7th day Adventists, and some other religions in particular however the Church does say certain things about other religions.

You would agree that Baptism is not part of the AA/12 step religion although has at its roots Protestant Christian roots. Therefore it would be fair to say that the Church would have nothing to say about the AA/12 step religion other than this…for to be considered Christian they must be baptized in the Trinitarian formula and not all that go to the 12 step/AA religion are baptized nor is baptism a requirement.

842 The Church’s bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race: All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .331

843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332

You love AA, your confessor loves AA and others love AA. Wonderful. This is testimonial and all I asked was for one, just one scientific article that proves that the AA/12 step religion has better than a 10% success rate with the sin of alcoholism.

Again, 12-step programs are not New Age, they are not “Eastern religious practices”, and they are not “morally neutral”. Whatever is intended by this passage it should not be read as a rejection of 12-step programs.

To this I would add “in my opinion” based on what I don’t know

 

[CopticChristian]

The Church has never said that addiction is sin, and She has never said that addiction is not a disease.

Your only source for this as Church teaching is a few words from an unofficial document on another subject. Words which you have conveniently removed from their context:

I addressed this previously, here, in direct response to you. I will reproduce my whole post.

---

You have found a valid resource, and deserve to have these points answered. My response follows.

Firstly, there should be a strong presumption against finding that the Church has rejected Alcoholics Anonymous, because AA is well known in Catholic circles, has been known for 70 years, and many priests, religious and laity are active members, and encourage Catholic alcoholics to follow the program, and still do so. For example, Fr Vincent Serpa, answers the question Can a Catholic go to Alcoholics Anonymous? with a firm yes. If one finds a document that appears to reject AA then it needs to be looked at closely to see exactly what it is saying.

Now, let’s look at the document.

1. It is about the New Age phenomenon. Twelve-step programs get only two passing mentions in it. No one could suggest that twelve-step programs have much to do with the New Age. The only relevance of the document then is where some aspects of New Age overlap with some aspects of twelve-stepping. It should be noted that the document itself says that many aspects of New Age also overlap with Catholicism. It’s not intrinsically wrong to overlap with New Age.

From the introduction:

Also, please note that it is largely informational, rather than doctrinal. It is not a syllabus of errors.

1. Again from the introduction:

Note: emphasis in the original.

So, it should not be read as a formal statement from the Church on anything. It is a provisional report only. As the two references to twelve-steps and addictions are only minor details, one should definitely not read them as formal statements from the church. They could well be removed from a subsequent report.

1. The first passage about twelve step programs is:

This reads as a comprehensive “background information” list only. It is not saying that every item here is contrary to Catholicism. For instance, Catholics can have massages, see a chiropractor, attend “self help” groups, etc. However, I would say that it is just plain wrong to include twelve-step programs in this list. “The source of healing is said to be within ourselves” is in contrast to “Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity”. In addition, the strong emphasis in AA on admitting wrongs and making amends is distinctly un-New Age. Some AA’ers are New Ageers, and most aren’t.

1. The second relevant passage is:

Again, 12-step programs are not New Age, they are not “Eastern religious practices”, and they are not “morally neutral”. Whatever is intended by this passage it should not be read as a rejection of 12-step programs.

I cannot provide you with a single authoritative reference from the highest sources saying that AA is acceptable for Catholics, however, as I said previously, the widespread acceptance, recommendation and use of them by Catholics, including the clergy, would indicate against reading two passing references from a provisional document on another subject, as condemnation.

Edmudus,

I am not suggesting condemnation, only a reasonable approach to the understanding of reality. The Church does not condemn the Jehovah Witness or Mormons.

I realize that you cannot provide a single authoratative reference for acceptance of AA by the Church. All I ever asked for was one single scientific reference for the efficacy of the religion of 12 steps/AA that shows that there is better than a 10% success rate that equates to doing nothing.

Since the original OP says is addiction a sin…it is easy to get there.

I have posted things for which there are agreement.

The religion of 12 steps/AA say that Gluttony is a sin as does the Catholic Church, there is agreement. We can agree that Gluttony is a sin.

The religion of 12 steps/AA says that character defects are sin and this is what one of the steps is geared towards correcting, we can agree on that.

We can agree that the willful eating or drinking to excess for whatever reason is a sin called Gluttony, we can agree on that.

We can agree that there is culpability in drinking or eating to excess because we can know the consequences and if we do not know, then as soon as we know we are culpable.

We can agree that the religion of 12 steps/AA leads to the ultimate outcome of recovery, starting with the notion of alcoholism, not initially embracing the notion of addiction/disease however clouded by the notion that addiction/alcoholism is a disease so that the starting point for entry into the religion of 12 steps/AA is the notion that one is addicted.

We can agree that the ultimate outcome of the religion of 12 steps/AA is recovery with resolution of character defects=sin.

It is not difficult to see that whether you agree or not, whether you find the document Jesus Christ the Bearer of the Water of life, de fide, preliminary, supporting or not supporting of the religion of 12 steps/AA, it does discuss the New Age.

You would agree that the document Jesus Christ the Bearer of the Water of Life says that

Addiction and Recovery

Have replaced

Sin and Salvation

This is fact and is born out in the recognition that although the religion of 12 steps/AA tout addiction/alcoholism as a means of entry, there is a bait and switch for resolution of sin. Gluttony is recognized as sin by the religion of 12 steps/AA and the ultimate outcome is recovery.

Therefore it is true and cannot be debated that the religion of 12 steps/AA touts Addiction and Recovery and there is agreement.

It is also true that the Church touts Sin and Salvation and for this there is no argument and as a Catholic based on all that has been said…

Addiction is sin requiring salvation…

 

[johnnyjones]

Johnny,

Here you see the same think speak of the 12 steps. You want to accept that? Ok…Do you also accept the DSM changing the notion that Homosexuality is not a disorder and the new language for LGBT? That is what you are doing. These definitions unfortunately do not equate to reality. I reject the DSM. I reject this definition. I think that since this thread is about sin a change in focus would help that woul shed light on it.

Jesus Christ the Bearer of the Water of Life says

Addiction and Recovery is being exhanged for Sin and Salvation

Veritatis Splendor says that true freedom is freedom from fear by aligning our Wills with the Will of God. To do God’s Will is what we were created for…so then look at The Twelve and Twelve below…Recall that the disease gets translated into character defects=SIN…and look at the sins that need addressing and what they generate…

Close but no cigar, because as the site I provided you about 12 steps to another Gospel misses the point…the religion of AA misses the following…are you ready…

This man made religion of AA, like all man made religions falls apart at the seams because they miss the obvious…Gluttony is the sin that causes too much drinking…duh

newadvent.org/cathen/06590a.htm

If Gluttony is one of sins you need to fix, did you notice that AA misses the point that this is the sin of INTEMPERANCE…drinking too much…Much of the language of the courts, AA, etc calls drinking too much chronic intemperance…duh

So what is the problem here, get a sponsor, read the book, go to meetings, learn the disease that is not a disease and then work on your sine or perhaps checking into what is really missing…Peele calls them values or the secular world calls them ethics and you can develop these on your own…so look at the human virtues…

There are 4 cardinal virtues…

The cardinal virtues

Stanton Peele, PhD says that values are the means to fight addiction and if you don’t have them get them.

The Church says that you should form you conscience, and with the grace of God you can establish yourself with the virtues to do the Will of God. Do you not think that a good dose of Prudence, Justice, Fortitude and Temperance would go a long way towards solving the problem of addiction? I do…and how do you get these virtues…are you ready…

So are you powerless by no means we are powerful for to us was given the utterance of Scripture, to us was given the divine Son, who adopted us and made us fellow heirs, are we to go on sinning that grace may abound, by no means for to us was given the grace, divine sonship to be what it is we are to be and the means by which we can be…and the Father lets us do it through Human Effort…

So AA misses the mark in trying to direct anyone to solve their sin problems and the Church is correct. Addiction is sin, never has been and never will be a disease…

Addiction and Recovery unfortunately have forsaken Sin and Salvation for in God, with grace, by Faith you have been saved…and you have to work it, by human effort to have the goods to do what is right…The Will of God…it works if you work it.

Addiction is sin plain and simple

I just showed you ONE, and it was not to defend the disease model. It was to show another poster that “alcoholism” is a medical term.

Is the Catholic church anti AA, and if it isn’t why not?

 

[CopticChristian]

I just showed you ONE, and it was not to defend the disease model. It was to show another poster that “alcoholism” is a medical term.

Is the Catholic church anti AA, and if it isn’t why not?

Johnny,

What did you show me?

The Catholic Church is the body of Christ, the head is Christ. The Church is the means by which the manifold wisdom of God is known.

If God is Father and provides loving guidance I rarely if ever see any condenmation for anything other than errors in thinking. Does the Church specifically condemn any non Catholic religion, by no means and the Church does not specifially condemn the religion of 12 steps/AA

842 **The Church’s bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race: **All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .331

843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332

Does the Church condemn any non-Catholic religion, by no means, rather it is a preparation for the Gospel…it serves a purpose…and once served then in my opinion has met its end…

If sin and salvation is the Gospel, adoption by Divine Sonship, and the means by which we are saved by grace, through Faith working in love so that we can know Veritatis Splendor…what purpose does any non Catholic religion serve towards that end once that is realized?

Should Mormons stay Mormon once the truth is known?

 

[johnnyjones]

Johnny,

What did you show me?

The Catholic Church is the body of Christ, the head is Christ. The Church is the means by which the manifold wisdom of God is known.

If God is Father and provides loving guidance I rarely if ever see any condenmation for anything other than errors in thinking. Does the Church specifically condemn any non Catholic religion, by no means and the Church does not specifially condemn the religion of 12 steps/AA

Does the Church condemn any non-Catholic religion, by no means, rather it is a preparation for the Gospel…it serves a purpose…and once served then in my opinion has met its end…

If sin and salvation is the Gospel, adoption by Divine Sonship, and the means by which we are saved by grace, through Faith working in love so that we can know Veritatis Splendor…what purpose does any non Catholic religion serve towards that end once that is realized?

Should Mormons stay Mormon once the truth is known?

Mormons don’t meet in Catholic Church basements to proselytize, nor do I know of any other religious group (which AA is) that is allowed to do that. I’m not defending all of AA though, you can’t seem to see that. I see addictive behavior as needing treatment, just like a serial adulterer would.

 

[clem456]

Johhny,

Stanton Peele, PhD…The Truth about addiction…so you espouse what you have been taught and what you believe. What studies show is what you say…

Wikipedia on Peele:

Funding

Lindesmith Center (now the Drug Policy Alliance): grant to write an adolescent drug guide (1996).

The Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (DISCUS), and the Wine Institute provided unrestricted grants.[12

Lindesmith Center(now the Drug Policy Alliance):

The Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) is a New York City-based non-profit organization, led by executive director Ethan Nadelmann, with the principal goal of ending the American “War on Drugs”. The stated priorities of the organization are the decriminalization of responsible drug use,

the promotion of harm reduction and treatment in response to drug misuse, and the facilitation of open dialog about drugs between youth, parents, and educators.

Mission

"The Drug Policy Alliance envisions a just society in which the use and regulation of drugs are grounded in science, compassion, health and human rights, in which people are no longer punished for what they put into their own bodies but only for crimes committed against others, and in which the fears, prejudices and punitive prohibitions of today are no more.

Our mission is to advance those policies and attitudes that best reduce the harms of both drug misuse and drug prohibition, and to promote the sovereignty of individuals over their minds and bodies."[3]

The Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (DISCUS) is a national trade association representing producers and marketers of distilled spirits

sold in the United States. DISCUS was formed in 1973 by the merger of three organizations (the Bourbon Institute, the Distilled Spirits Institute, and the Licensed Beverage Industries, Inc.) that had been in existence for decades

Peele supported Moderation Management founder Audrey Kishline, who also subscribed to the belief that addiction is not a disease.[13] After giving up her own attempts at moderation to seek help with AA,

Kishline was convicted of killing a father and his 12-year-old daughter while driving under the influence of alcohol.[14] This was widely claimed to invalidate Kishline’s position and by association, Peele’s. Peele was one of 34 addiction professionals who published a statement about the Kishline incident [15] stating that “the approach represented by Alcoholics Anonymous and that represented by Moderation Management are both needed.”
Some fine writings by this man directly from his website:

The Benefits of Alcohol

Journal Articles and Book Chapters
•Peele, S. (1993), The conflict between public health goals and the temperance mentality. American Journal of Public Health, 83, 805-810.
•Peele, S. & A. Brodsky (1996), The antidote to alcohol abuse: Sensible drinking messages. In Wine in Context: Nutrition, Physiology, Policy, Davis, CA: American Society for Enology and Viticulture, pp. 66-70.
•Peele, S. (1999), Introduction. In S. Peele & M. Grant (Eds.), Alcohol and pleasure: A health perspective, Philadelphia, PA: Brunner/Mazel, pp. 1-7.
•Peele, S. (1999), Promoting positive drinking: Alcohol, necessary evil or positive good? In: S. Peele & M. Grant (Eds.), Alcohol and pleasure: A health perspective, Philadelphia: Brunner/Mazel, pp. 375-389.
•Peele, S., & A. Brodsky (2000), Exploring psychological benefits associated with moderate alcohol use: A necessary corrective to assessments of drinking outcomes? Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 60, 221-247.

Magazine Articles
•Peele, S. (1996), Should physicians recommend alcohol to their patients? Priorities, 8(1), 24-29.
•Peele, S. (1999, October), Bottle battle: The latest fight over wine labels is part of the ongoing struggle between wets and drys. Reason, pp. 52-54.

Newspaper Articles
•Peele, S. (1998, July), Alcoholism and the elderly — The new epidemic? The Star Ledger (Newark), July 29, p. A19.
•Peele, S. (2010), Alcohol — the good side. Los Angeles Times, July 21, 2010, A17.
•Peele, S. (2011), A Toast to Your Health. Warning: Alcohol may increase your life expectancy and reduce dementia. Wall Street Journal, February 2, 2011.

Letters to the Editor
•Peele, S. (2001), American Heart Association advisory, “Wine and Your Heart,” is not science-based. Circulation, 104, e73.

Stanton’s Blog
•We Don’t Believe Alcohol’s Good For You! August 19, 2010.
•The Hidden Health Benefits of Alcohol? August 16, 2010.

[/quote]