08 Jun 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadGood point. However I don't think communion itself would be the excuse, more that fact that Jesus clearly didn't have a problem with alcohol. I know Catholics who have given up alcohol for lent, but if you ask them whether they are still taking communion wine, they get all offeneded: 'It's the Blood of Christ!' They really don't view it as substantially wine, and therefore wouldn't use it as an excuse for drinking. But yeah, like I said, the Bible said Jesus used wine at the last supper so that would be excuse enough.
The problem is that Christians who do like to drink can always use communion as an excuse, as an example to show that drinking alcohol cant be all bad. Also the story about Jesus turning water into wine comes in handy too. Clearly Jesus thought that a party isn't a party without some of the hard stuff.
Of course I think you have to distinguish between excessive drinking and drinking in moderation. Plenty of people who speak out against alchol are really speaking out about drunkneness or alcholism. I'd say the vast majority don't have a problem with a couple of drinks. Unless it's a wedding and Jesus says its ok to get smashed.
08 Jun 07
Originally posted by Jake EllisonThe initial post includes:
Of course I think you have to distinguish between excessive drinking and drinking in moderation. Plenty of people who speak out against alchol are really speaking out about drunkneness or alcholism. I'd say the vast majority don't have a problem with a couple of drinks. Unless it's a wedding and Jesus says its ok to get smashed.
"Are there any other cults which shove alcohol consumption (or any other highly addictive, highly destructive drugs) down the throats of children on a weekly basis? Can we assume that the conundrum of the alcoholic Irish has been solved?"
Which is effectively making the claim that alcohol is a "highly addictive, highly destructive drug". It also mentions alcoholism which I believe is an addiction that can result in some individuals even if they try to stick to moderation.
The problem with alcohol, as I see it, is that it is a mind altering substance and the first drink makes it harder to say no to the next and so on and many people have trouble sticking with moderation.
Another major issue is that many people refuse to take responsibility for any acts they commit while 'under the influence' or at best claim reduced responsibility.
I still think that whatever theological claims that may be made about the wine in communion it does make it much harder for the church to speak out about alcohol consumption when everybody knows that it is part of the Sunday ritual.
I for one, as a child would probably not have known whether or not Jesus endorsed alcohol consumption but I did know that it was taken at communion and if my parents had told me that drinking was entirely wrong it would have conflicted sharply with their regular Sunday actions. In fact their argument must necessarily be reduced to one of moderation.
08 Jun 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadAll the cigarette smokers who have ever tried to give up will know how hard it is to abstain while in the presence of somebody smoking.
Which is effectively making the claim that alcohol is a "highly addictive, highly destructive drug". It also mentions alcoholism which I believe is an addiction that can result in some individuals even if they try to stick to moderation.
The same is true of alcohol. On the one hand, the Catholic Church in Ireland is involved in a lot of AA stuff. On the other, they tell everybody on a weekly basis that wine is great (even lifting it to an exalted status above their head, idolising alcohol in a way) and drink in front of these same people that they help outside of the church.
I hope to respond to the rest of the thread later when I have a chance to properly digest it.
D
08 Jun 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadAlcoholics can't stick to moderation. Either they have to go completly clean or they will drink themselves to unconciousness. I have a relative who is an alcoholic, and he couldn't just have one drink, but would always finnish the bottle.
The initial post includes:
"Are there any other cults which shove alcohol consumption (or any other highly addictive, highly destructive drugs) down the throats of children on a weekly basis? Can we assume that the conundrum of the alcoholic Irish has been solved?"
Which is effectively making the claim that alcohol is a "highly addictive, highl ...[text shortened]... r Sunday actions. In fact their argument must necessarily be reduced to one of moderation.
In terms of actions committed while drunk, at least in Britian, if you commit a crime while under the influence of alchol, counts will view you in a much worse light then if you'd been sober. Alcohol can't be used as a plea for reduced responsiblity.
I do take your point, however plenty of non Christians still drink and argue for moderation. Christianity doesn't necessarily take the arguement directly from abstiance to moderation because there are a huge number of reasons why alchol could be enjoyed in moderation that don't come from the bible.
08 Jun 07
Originally posted by Jake EllisonBut is that only after becoming alcoholic? If all people tried their best to stick to moderation would some people still become alcoholic?
Alcoholics can't stick to moderation. Either they have to go completly clean or they will drink themselves to unconciousness. I have a relative who is an alcoholic, and he couldn't just have one drink, but would always finnish the bottle.
Do alcoholics avoid the wine in communion? Is it enough to make them need to drink more? If so, is this proof that the claim that it is no longer an alcoholic beverage is false?
08 Jun 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe thing about alcoholics is they have a dependancy. Its not just that once they've had one they can't stop, its that they need drink. An alcoholic will reach a point when they cannot function without a drink. They wake up and they need a drink to do anything. Some will wake up and drink till they are sick. As the dependancy develops and you do more and more damge to yourself it takes less and less to get drunk. The liver just can't handle it anymore. Some alcoholics could be totally drunk on just a few drinks. Once you reach this stage you need rehab and medical attention or you will most likely drink yourself to death. You can never be cured however and if you go sober you have to stick off the drink entirely. One drink could send you right back over the edge.
But is that only after becoming alcoholic? If all people tried their best to stick to moderation would some people still become alcoholic?
Do alcoholics avoid the wine in communion? Is it enough to make them need to drink more? If so, is this proof that the claim that it is no longer an alcoholic beverage is false?
The difference with a non alcholic is you can know your limits. You can stop. Sure the drunker you become the more having another drink seems like a good idea, but it is possible to go out and have one drink. After just a few drinks the urge to drink more is still small. When (non alcholics) get drunk often they went out to get drunk in the first place. It wasn't a case of intending to stay sober and not being able to resist. If you don't want to get drunk most people won't.
As for communion wine, its not worth the risk. I'd imagine a sip would be ok, but to get the taste for alcohol is not smart. The alcoholic relative I have does not take communion wine. The thing about the Catholics take on comunion is this: they do not believe that the form of the drink has changed. When they drink it they know they are drink something alcoholic that has not physically altered. They believe the substance of what it is has changed. You could never measure or see this change becuase its not a scientific thing its God blessing the wine and it being transubstantiated. Not transformed. In the past scholars argued over weather the actual Blood of Christ could make you drunk, seeing as it can once its been consecrated. However today its accpted that the form of the drink is not that of the Blood of Christ. Catholics do not believe they are drinking something that could have flown through the veins of Jesus. Importantly, they don't believe the wine to be a symbol, they litarally believe it to be the Blood of Christ (but only in substance).
The idea of transubstantiation is one of the most difficult ideas to explian.
08 Jun 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadI know some alcoholics who avoid the wine at communion. No matter what the substance is, the smell is wine. The smell of wine combined with the taste of wine can be enough to trigger a relapse in some people. Other people don't have a problem with it.
But is that only after becoming alcoholic? If all people tried their best to stick to moderation would some people still become alcoholic?
Do alcoholics avoid the wine in communion? Is it enough to make them need to drink more? If so, is this proof that the claim that it is no longer an alcoholic beverage is false?
08 Jun 07
Originally posted by pawnhandlerBut it's not wine, it's the blood of christ, right? So it really shouldn't be a problem. Right?
I know some alcoholics who avoid the wine at communion. No matter what the substance is, the smell is wine. The smell of wine combined with the taste of wine can be enough to trigger a relapse in some people. Other people don't have a problem with it.
08 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by joneschrImagine for a second, that every single day (except Good Friday), all around the world, in every single Catholic church a preist raised a cup of wine ubove his head, spoke some special words, and when he lowered the cup it contained blood. Not just a symbol here. This is actual blood. If you take it and examine it under a microscope you can see erythrocytes and lucocytes and platlets. You analise its content and it contains glucose, urea, plasma proteins, a spesific concentration of sodium ions, a spesific concentration of potassium ions, cholride ions and so on. Its opaque and dark red. Its literally the Blood of Christ. Casually the preist drinks the blood and then feeds it, along with lumps of human flesh, to a massive crowd.
But it's not wine, it's the blood of christ, right? So it really shouldn't be a problem. Right?
Imagine that for a second. Now if that were true one of two things would happen. Either the entire world would be Catholic, or people would be terribly afraid of the dangerous cult which practises witch craft (apparently) and is cannabalistic.
Clearly is not the case. No Catholic believes that what they drink has the form, the chemical make up, the apperence, the smell or the taste of blood. The believe it to have the form of wine. They believe it to be a drink made from grapes, containing about 12-14% alcohol.
So why is it special? It's the substance. The supernatural quality. Some characteristic of this wine is fundamentally different. However to see this difference you'd have to be God.
So. When an alcoholic drinks the 'blood of christ' he is still drinking something with the form of wine. It will have totally the same effect on him as any other wine would have. Therefore he should avoid it if there is a negative effect. This does not contradict his Catholic faith. In fact, no Catholic must drink the wine if he or she so chooses. This doesn't change the fact that the blood of christ, is, in its fundamental existance, Jesus Christs blood.
(I'm an atheist, this is what Catholics believe.)
09 Jun 07
Ok, Irish catholic here. (well, went through all the rituals anyway, though technically I'm a 'non practicing catholic'.
First off the point everyone seems to be missing is that the thread is about a causal link between the consumption of wine in communion, and alcoholism. It quotes the high level of alcoholism in Ireland along with the high incidence of alcoholism there as evidence.
Alcoholism is more accurately a result of economic destitution, as is a high degree of religiousness (I understand I'm speaking in generalities, and there will of course be specific cases tot he contrary). As Ireland has become more prosperous, both religious attendance and alcoholism have dropped off. The two are symptoms of oe thing, not of eachother.
Also, I have never gotten the opportunity to drink the wine in service, and don't know a single person who wasn't a priest or a nun or an ex-nun who has. the wine is also only about 3 to 4%, and if you are a coeliac, you can ask your parish priest to serve gluten free eucharist.
The reason we Irish drink, the reason I'm having a glass of the good stuff right now as I type, is because it is enjoyable, it is a cultural and social lubricant and it is something that you grow up seeing your peers do in fields with cheap cider, not in mass with weak (watered down in front of everyone) wine.
It is clearly stated to all catholics that it is not physically the blood or body of christ, it is a transubstantiated representation of such. (i.e. it is both normal wine and the blood of christ at the same time... call it an act of faith)
fair enough if you wanna analyse religous practices, but leave Irish drinking habits out of it! Now, where's my pint...
09 Jun 07
Originally posted by agrysonI totally agree with the idea that the link between alcholism and large proportion of the population being religious has a link through a common cause as opposed to one causing the other.
Also, I have never gotten the opportunity to drink the wine in service, and don't know a single person who wasn't a priest or a nun or an ex-nun who has. the wine is also only about 3 to 4%, and if you are a coeliac, you can ask your parish priest to serve gluten free eucharist.
I'm surprised that you've never gotten the opportunity to have wine in the service. At my church every single person drinks the wine. Not only that but only one cup, the biggest one containing the most wine, has any water added to it. It is also only a couple of drops. This is in England, but I go back to Ireland every year and theres been wine at every service there.
What part of Ireland are you from, because I've never heard of anything like that before.
10 Jun 07
Originally posted by Jake EllisonSo, if the essense of christ, as it were, is so independent to the physical matter, then why must it be wine? If wine is harmful to the alcoholic, and we don't want to be making a bunch of drunkards, why not just turn beet juice into the blood of christ. It's quite a bit better for you in it's physical matter. And after all, I'm sure god wouldn't want us getting sick trying to drink his blood.
Imagine for a second, that every single day (except Good Friday), all around the world, in every single Catholic church a preist raised a cup of wine ubove his head, spoke some special words, and when he lowered the cup it contained blood. Not just a symbol here. This is actual blood. If you take it and examine it under a microscope you can see erythroc ...[text shortened]... ental existance, Jesus Christs blood.
(I'm an atheist, this is what Catholics believe.)
10 Jun 07
I'm from just north of Dublin, in county meath. Granted, ours is probably only a few drops of water added as well, but I've never heard of the wine being offered to everyone. Even at a catholic service in Belgium, and one here in Paris it was reserved for the priests. I'm certain it's not just a local thing to my area in Ireland.
As for its effect on alcoholism, as I've said, there's much bigger issues. Almost everyone is related to or knows an alcoholic, myself included, and I can say without a doubt that eucharistic wine, or the apparent veneration of it has no impact on whether someone goes on to become an alcoholic.
The Catholic church has done and continues to do some pretty *ucked up stuff, but it's just silly to say that spreading alcoholism (even inadvertently) is one of them.