Lupe Lu, let’s try this another way. Because I don’t think that we’re disagreeing, but we are speaking past each other.
Before I explain, here’s the quote from St. Paul on women shutting up. Before anyone goes off on me, yes it was I who added “shut up and put up” That’s because many people use this that way. Which is goofy. That’s another thread.
1 Corinthians 14:34
let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law,
On this issue, I said in one of my earlier posts that very often one triggers an addition through sinful behavior. This is the behavior about which Paul is speaking.
Having said that a person with an addictive personality can trigger a major problem with sinful behavior, there is another point in moral theology that St. Paul does not cover, but the Church does. That is that as the person loses control or freedom, culpability is diminished and can even disappear, depending on the intensity of the addiction.
Since we’re speaking about alcoholism, I’m taking for granted that we’re speaking about something a little different from going around drunk because the individual either sees nothing wrong with it or fails to exercise restraint. That would be drunkenness.
Alcoholism, on the other hand, is not mentioned in great detail in the CCC, because objectively it is not a sin, but can certainly be the product of sinful behavior. Objectively, if one is true alcoholic, one is ill. The rules of moral theology are that one’s culpability is proportionate to one’s freedom. Addictions have varying degrees. Therefore, they are going to be varying degrees of freedom or no freedom at all. That affects the degree of culpability.
We can’t just say, “Paul said . . . “ without looking at what moral theology says about culpability. Paul is naming the sin. He is not giving us a system by which we can assess the degree of culpability. That system is given to us by moral theology. As we know, moral theology says that for one to be culpable of grave sin, one must meet all three of the following conditions.
- The matter must be grave
- There has to be full knowledge
- There has to be freedom to choose
It’s number three that we have to say that addiction can diminish freedom to such a point that it diminishes culpability or there is none at all, depending on the degree of the addiction.
We have to remember that there are addicts who become incompetent after extended abuse. These folks continue to use alcohol, but they are not in their right state of mind to even choose to put themselves into some kind of recovery program. There are people who develop other mental illnesses from long term use and abuse of alcohol. I’ve seen alcoholics whom I wondered how much contact they have with reality.
We have to remember, that while this may have all begun with sin, it can reach a point where there is a loss of control and even a loss of one’s mental faculties. That person is still going to drink, but he is not deprived of God’s love and mercy, because he is sick.
Again, this is a principle of morality, not an isolated statement on alcoholism. The CCC gives the subject a broad stroke, precisely because it is a very complex subject and can be the topic of another book.
Look at this paragraph on the habit of masturbation and observe how the moral principle is applied without contradicting scripture. It is the moral principle that I’m defending here, not alcoholism.
**2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.” **
“The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.”
We know this to be true. Now, watch how the Church determines culpability.
**To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account **the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.
These are the pieces that St. Paul does not mention, because he’s speaking about acts and behaviors that are objectively disordered. However, he is not writing a manual on moral theology, nor has he any knowledge of human psychology. Today’s Church has the knowledge of human psychology and realizes that the human being is very complex. She also has systems of moral theology that help her apply the moral content of the scripture.
If we take St. Paul alone, without the principle that the Church uses in pastoral practice to assess culpability, we’re lacking information needed to make an objective assessment of a particular individual’s situation.
I don’t think that we’re contradicting each other. I think that I’m adding to what Paul said the principles of moral theology that the Church uses along with what Paul says. By applying these principles can then interpret Paul’s teaching correctly and fairly.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
