In Times of India dated February 8, 2007 there was an article titled "Right to drink" by Jaimini Mehta. It deals with total prohibition in Gujarat which, the author argues, infringes on his 'right to consume alcohol in moderation'.
In contrast, the Kerala Catholic hierarchy clubs the moderate and excessive users of alcohol together calling them all by the derogative Malayalam term madyapani (= drunkard) and accuses them of causing a litany of social ills from divorce to depression to suicide. It advocates total prohibition as a panacea for this plethora of diseases. January 28 is celebrated as 'anti-alcohol' day by Kerala Catholic Bishops’ Council (KCBC).
The first heretical reaction that crosses my mind is that henceforth Catholic priests/bishops should stop using wine during mass and instead try water. I wonder why one cannot advocate temperance as a via media between total prohibition and intemperance. Temperance is the moderate use of alcohol as opposed to its abuse. Before getting into the pros of temperance, a brief run through the history of alcohol and its varied uses might strengthen my arguments in favor of temperance as a happy medium between the moral highhandedness of the abolitionist and the excesses of the drunkard.
In the popular movie of the 70s, Beautiful People by Jamie Uys, one scene depicts a number of animals, including elephants and a troop of baboons dancing in drunken stupor a day after consuming large quantities of rotting fruits of the African marula tree. They were obviously enjoying the 'high' from their fermenting juices. It can be safely assumed that early man and woman did enjoy in a similar fashion. Many archeologists do believe that wines made from grapes have existed for the last 10000 years at least and beer even longer. Viticulture, the selective cultivation of grape vines for making wine, is thought to have originated in modern Armenia around 6000-4000 BCE. Ancient Egyptians were drinkers since it is now known that they invented the straw for drinking beer that contained wheat-husks. A 1600 BCE Egyptian text describes 100 different prescriptions calling for the use of alcohol. The Greeks had Bacchus as the god of wine, while Romans worshipped the same god as Dionysus. This worship took the form of an orgy of intoxication. In many ancient creeds, a tipple was the main means by which worshippers achieved ecstasy.
Alcohol formed and still forms an important part of Jewish rituals. Hebrews were most likely introduced to wine during their captivity in Egypt. When Moses led them to Canaan around 1200 BCE they regretted leaving behind the wines of Egypt (Numbers 20:5). Later, following their release from the Babylonian exile, the Hebrews developed Judaism as it is now known. During the next 200 years, wine became a necessary element in their life. It came to be regarded as a blessing from God and a symbol of joy (Psalms 104:15; Zachariah 10:7).
Jesus was a Jew and as a Jew he partook of wine and was falsely accused by his critics of being a drunkard (Luke 7:33). He used wine and approved of its moderate consumption (Mathew 15:11). In fact his first miracle was turning water into wine to make wedding guests happy. Apostle Paul considered wine to be a creation of God and therefore inherently good. He recommended it for medicinal purposes but condemned drunkenness. Late in the second century certain heretical sects rejected alcohol and called for total abstinence. During the forth/fifth centuries the church responded by asserting that wine is an inherently good gift of God to be used and enjoyed.
During the middle ages, monasteries made beer to nourish their monks and to sell to the people. As the consumption of liquids was not considered to break the fast, beer was always permitted. The levels of consumption reached astounding highs: 5 liters/monk/day!! The early modern period saw Luther, Calvin, leaders of the Anglican Church as well as Puritans in agreement with the teachings of the Catholic Church of the time: alcohol was a gift of God and created to be used in moderation for pleasure, enjoyment and health; drunkenness was viewed as a sin.
Alcoholism and intemperate use of alcohol has always been condemned by most social and cultural groups throughout history. Ancient Greek philosophers Xenophon and Plato both praised the moderate use of wine as beneficial to health and happiness, but both were critical of drunkenness.
The distinction between the temperate and intemperate is crucial in analyzing and understanding the evils of alcoholism, its prevention and treatment. My major criticism is directed to the lumping of the two together indiscriminately and accusing the moderate drinkers of crimes committed by those with destructive drinking behavior. This is akin to accusing every Catholic priest, nun and bishop of sexual abuse just because some among them are found to be abusive. In fact this kind of generalized criminalization causes great harm to the moderate social drinker and his family life. Moderate users, who are in the majority, are overshadowed by their more boisterous counterparts, and it is the latter who through their nefarious activities grab a disproportionate amount of attention and news coverage. Some moderate/social drinkers spend a couple of happy hours at a pub having a tote or two; others gather at a common friend's place to share a few beers; still others have a couple of drinks at home. After relaxing in this fashion, they continue with their lives without causing any harm to anyone. Current research suggests that the moderate consumption of alcohol is preferable to abstinence; it appears to reduce the incidence of coronary heart disease, cancer and osteoporosis, among many other diseases and conditions and to increase longevity. (My late father Pralel P.C. Joseph who died at age 93 is a shining example.)
I spent part of December 2006 and most of January 2007 in Kerala, attending a number of functions: four related to my own son's marriage, two in connection with my niece's marriage and one for a cousin's son. Out of these seven occasions, alcohol was served at five of them. Many guests were teetotalers while a sizeable number of them were moderate consumers, happy with a couple of drinks. Then there were the excessive drinkers including the rather young and the very old. There are some things unique about the alcoholic Keralite: the copious amounts greedily gulped down within a short interval of time without solid intakes; the incapacity as a result to hold liquor; and the inability to hold sensible conversation.
I tried to find more about the alcoholic Keralite. I was told that there is a steep rise in their number especially among the younger generation. Kerala is already infamous as the state with the highest reported cases of suicide. Why so many alcoholics? Why so many suicides?
I have my own theory in this regard. I believe there is a paradigm shift from the value system underscored by religious precepts to one which revolves around the twin foci of wealth and power. The mad rush towards material possessions is guided by selfishness; there is no time for love. Now the question is: how did this paradigm shift come about? Why was the religious leadership, both Christian and non-Christian, unable to prevent this unholy shift?
A half century ago when my generation was growing up, our lives revolved around the church and the rituals therein. We were made to memorize the catechism in the question answer format by the good nuns, without really understanding most of it anyway. We were taught about sins which ranged from the very venial (lying to your mother about the cookie you ate without her permission) to the very mortal (thinking about a girl). The consequences of sin, both venial and mortal, were drummed into our young minds - long periods of stay in purgatory if you die not confessing and repenting a venial sin, while eternal damnation in hell awaits you for a similar situation for a mortal sin. You can escape from purgatory to heaven if you have enough friends and relatives to offer sufficient prayers - different prayers have different periods of remission. Hell down below, however, is a completely different kettle of fish (or more appropriately snakes). There is a special type of very hot non-extinguishable fire that burns you eternally without turning you to cinders; different kinds of poisonous creepy- crawly like snakes, centipedes, spiders getting into your anatomy through one opening and coming out through another. Heaven up above, on the contrary, is a place of perennial sweet music, with choirs of angels playing harps, keeping everyone entertained. The holier you are, the closer you are to God's throne. So we tried to be good so we could end up in heaven and join the angelic choirs for all eternity and we avoided being bad because we did not want to end up in Lucifer's clutches. As is very clear, our 'disciplined lifestyle' was the result of fear and terror. It was much later that I realized that the Catholic Church and Stalinist Russia have one thing in common: fear - fear of hell in the case of the former and fear of Gulag for the latter.
This type of value system based on religious speculation and rituals, systematically developed in young minds through indoctrination, cannot withstand the test of time. As the winds of social and economic change began to sweep the country, it fell by the wayside. Materialism became the new mantra. Many thought happiness could be bought with money and power. However, as any economist would affirm, wants are infinite, means are limited. Disillusion set in. Many who tried to hold on to heaven were suddenly told that it is no longer a physical place of angels and music, but a state of mind. With nothing substantial to hold on to, man feels totally empty within. This feeling of emptiness leads to depression, drugs, drunkenness and related vices. Some find life so empty as to be meaningless and not worth living and prefer to end it. Perhaps it is time to think of a different set of values to base our lives on.
Bertrand Russell in his book 'Why I am not a Christian', talks of such a value system: The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge. Love and knowledge are mutually inclusive: neither love without knowledge, nor knowledge without love can produce a good life. Love, however, is more fundamental, 'since it will lead intelligent people to seek knowledge, in order to find out how to benefit whom they love'. Knowledge is also important since we must know in what our happiness lie.
On an atheist website there is a set of New Ten Commandments. The first two are: 'Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you' and 'In all things strive to cause no harm'. This is simply what Christ told the Pharisees: 'Love your neighbor as you love yourself' (Mathew 22:39). In today's world if a child can be brought up to love and cherish others, he will not get totally drunk and cause mayhem all around; he will think twice about the shame and sorrow he will bring on his family before he thinks of suicide. He will find happiness in loving and being loved. So what is needed is a paradigm shift from a value system based on ritualistic and literalistic traditions to one underscored by the core teaching of the New Testament: love your neighbor as you love yourself. Then there will be no need for the prohibitory edicts of the KCBC against drunkenness!
Just because people commit suicide by jumping in front of trains, we cannot stop train services. Banning the use of knives cannot be done although some have been used to kill. In fact humans, being curious by nature, would like to know why something is banned. Banning the movie 'Da Vinci Code' by overzealous Church authorities had the opposite effect: it made many more millions at the box office than otherwise! Prohibition has not worked in the past, nor will it work in future. It also brings about other evils as well. When American prohibition of the late 18th and early 19th century was withdrawn in 1933, an elaborate syndicate of organized crime built on the multimillion dollar 'bootlegging' industry survived. Even at home we read of tragedies caused by the illegal brewing of liquor, most often poisonous, in places where prohibition is extant. A very good example of how ineffective are prohibitory orders is to be seen at times of engagement and marriage receptions held in parish halls. There is a strict injunction against serving of alcohol in the parish hall or its premises by the bishop which is vigorously enforced by certain overzealous priests. But the diehard drunkards get around in various ways: setting up mini-bars in car boots; having an open bar arranged in a house nearby; pitching a tent on a vacant plot next to the parish hall etc. So KCBC needs to look beyond prohibitory orders and channel their efforts in bringing about a change in the Faithfull’s mindset through education, a shift in core value system and above all exemplary lives devoid of the pursuit of power and mammon.
In conclusion, I would like to appeal to Church hierarchy and the anti alcohol lobby not to drown the subtle but crucial differences between drinking and drunkenness in the clamor for total prohibition. And I agree with Jaimini and request them and other moral crusaders not to interfere with my right to ‘civilized drinking’.
