6 ms·

"We read, it is true, that wine is by no means a drink for monks; but since the monks of our day cannot be persuaded of this, let us at least agree to drink spa

by jawns 6y ago

"We read, it is true, that wine is by no means a drink for monks; but since the monks of our day cannot be persuaded of this, let us at least agree to drink sparingly and not to satiety, because 'wine makes even the wise fall away.'" I'm a Catholic, and this is the rule that amuses me the most. The monks were willing to give up most material possessions and submit to a life of poverty, obedience, and sexual abstinence... but the one thing they couldn't be persuaded to give up was the hooch.

tenpies 6y ago
I always considered it more of a reflection on practicality. There is going to be wine around the monastery, if only because it is necessary for Mass. Therefore, you cannot really ban wine, so are you really going to dedicate a group of monks to the sole task of cellar guard duty?
- aksss 6y ago
  While reading about Jesus drinking wine. :) I think the compromise is practical and also in line with the advice of the apostles. Nothing wrong with drinking, but drunkenness is a risk in many ways.
- ogogmad 6y ago
  I don't know if this is off-topic, but in some religions, including Judaism and some denominations of Christianity, drinking is a religious necessity. In Judaism: Every Sabbath, you bless and drink wine. Every Passover, you drink four cups of wine. Every Purim, you are commanded to drink to your happiness. In some denominations of Christianity: You drink wine as part of the Eucharist. On the other hand, I think in Islam, drinking wine is forbidden. So different religions have different views on drink.
  - earthboundkid 6y ago
    DT Suzuki has a funny quip in some book where he knocks Christianity for drinking intoxicating wine, whereas Zen drinks tea. I laughed but actually wine rules.
- baud147258 6y ago
  the amount of wine required for the mass isn't exactly the same as what would be drunk during meals, especially as, in monasteries, not all monks are priests. And even if wine wouldn't be banned, I think the wine would be stored under lock and key, if only to avoid consumption outside of meals
  - dodobirdlord 6y ago
    Benedict predated the shift in Catholic practice of only priests drinking from the chalice. In his time both priests and lay members would have needed wine.
  - spthorn60 6y ago
    And too, the recommended "hemina" portion is apparently just over a half a US pint. Certainly not enough to replace potentially bad water in a diet.
    - baud147258 6y ago
      the "common knowledge" (which I have no idea how true it is historically) is that wine was diluted in the "bad water", not replacing it
analog31 6y ago
I'm sure it depended on geography and time period, but I've read that it wasn't always possible to drink water due to cholera. There may have been a necessity of mixing in at least some wine with the water, to disinfect it. Some have gone so far as to suggest that the arrival of tea from China, which required boiling the water, resulted in a bit of an intellectual boost in Europe. There were many monasteries where beer and wine making were part of their business model.
- ta988 6y ago
  Alcohol concentration would not be enough to kill cholera... Especially diluted. Strongest wines are usually in the 15-17% alcohol...
  - jimktrains2 6y ago
    You have to boil the water which does in order to make beer and wine (and spirits).
    - samatman 6y ago
      Beer (wort, at this stage) is heated before fermentation, normally not boiled but enough to kill bacteria. Wine is normally made from pure juice, and isn't heated at any point in the process. But again, it's made from pure juice: the inside of a grape is not a usual place to find dangerous bacteria, and on the outside one would normally find only the yeasts which produce the fermentation. Modern wine-making washes the grapes thoroughly and adds yeast, the old-school method was simply to crush, and rely on the surface bloom and residual yeast in the vessel to do the work. Which lead to rather more vinegar than the modern vintner would tolerate.
      - peapicker 6y ago
        As one who has brewed beer for 27 years now, wort is definitely brought to a boil at the beginning of a brew to cause the ‘hot break’ proteins to coagulate. The wort is then held at a low boil or near boiling for 45-60 min after the bittering hops are added as those temperatures most efficiently allow the alpha acids from the lupulin glands of the hops to enter solution. Grape juice for wine, as it can’t be heated without ruining it, is usually lightly sulphited for a day or three before adding yeast, which kills the bacteria present in the juice.
jonah 6y ago
I've always liked Catholic writer G.K. Chesterton's take: “Drink because you are happy, but never because you are miserable. Never drink when you are wretched without it, or you will be like the grey-faced gin-drinker in the slum; but drink when you would be happy without it, and you will be like the laughing peasant of Italy. Never drink because you need it, for this is rational drinking, and the way to death and hell. But drink because you do not need it, for this is irrational drinking, and the ancient health of the world.”
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dr_dshiv 6y ago
  Is this a good general rule for all drugs? Do them for happiness and only while happy; never when sad or for escape?
  - dbtc 6y ago
    Maybe a good basis for differentiating “drugs” vs “medicine”?
    - memling 6y ago
      > Maybe a good basis for differentiating “drugs” vs “medicine”? Perhaps, although I don't think in the way I'd take your statement. Chesterton was quite opposed to the idea that drinking would be medicinal (although maybe he would have allowed that happiness is good medicine?). From the context[1]: > A new morality has burst upon us with some violence in connection with the problem of strong drink; and enthusiasts in the matter range from the man who is violently thrown out at 12.30, to the lady who smashes American bars with an axe. In these discussions it is almost always felt that one very wise and moderate position is to say that wine or such stuff should only be drunk as a medicine. With this I should venture to disagree with a peculiar ferocity. The one genuinely dangerous and immoral way of drinking wine is to drink it as a medicine. And for this reason, If a man drinks wine in order to obtain pleasure, he is trying to obtain something exceptional, something he does not expect every hour of the day, something which, unless he is a little insane, he will not try to get every hour of the day. But if a man drinks wine in order to obtain health, he is trying to get something natural; something, that is, that he ought not to be without; something that he may find it difficult to reconcile himself to being without. The man may not be seduced who has seen the ecstasy of being ecstatic; it is more dazzling to catch a glimpse of the ecstasy of being ordinary. If there were a magic ointment, and we took it to a strong man, and said, "This will enable you to jump off the Monument," doubtless he would jump off the Monument, but he would not jump off the Monument all day long to the delight of the City. But if we took it to a blind man, saying, "This will enable you to see," he would be under a heavier temptation. It would be hard for him not to rub it on his eyes whenever he heard the hoof of a noble horse or the birds singing at daybreak. It is easy to deny one's self festivity; it is difficult to deny one's self normality. Hence comes the fact which every doctor knows, that it is often perilous to give alcohol to the sick even when they need it. I need hardly say that I do not mean that I think the giving of alcohol to the sick for stimulus is necessarily unjustifiable. But I do mean that giving it to the healthy for fun is the proper use of it, and a great deal more consistent with health. [1] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/470/470-h/470-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/470/470-h/470-h.htm (search for "Omar and the Sacred Vine" -- chapter 7).
sixo 6y ago
"...But where the circumstances of the place are such that not even the measure prescribed above can be supplied, but much less or none at all, let those who live there bless God and not murmur. Above all things do we give this admonition, that they abstain from murmuring." But if we run out, above all there will be no complaining.

by jawns 6y ago

tenpies 6y ago

I always considered it more of a reflection on practicality. There is going to be wine around the monastery, if only because it is necessary for Mass. Therefore, you cannot really ban wine, so are you really going to dedicate a group of monks to the sole task of cellar guard duty?

aksss 6y ago
While reading about Jesus drinking wine. :) I think the compromise is practical and also in line with the advice of the apostles. Nothing wrong with drinking, but drunkenness is a risk in many ways.
ogogmad 6y ago
I don't know if this is off-topic, but in some religions, including Judaism and some denominations of Christianity, drinking is a religious necessity. In Judaism: Every Sabbath, you bless and drink wine. Every Passover, you drink four cups of wine. Every Purim, you are commanded to drink to your happiness. In some denominations of Christianity: You drink wine as part of the Eucharist. On the other hand, I think in Islam, drinking wine is forbidden. So different religions have different views on drink.
- earthboundkid 6y ago
  DT Suzuki has a funny quip in some book where he knocks Christianity for drinking intoxicating wine, whereas Zen drinks tea. I laughed but actually wine rules.
baud147258 6y ago
the amount of wine required for the mass isn't exactly the same as what would be drunk during meals, especially as, in monasteries, not all monks are priests. And even if wine wouldn't be banned, I think the wine would be stored under lock and key, if only to avoid consumption outside of meals
- dodobirdlord 6y ago
  Benedict predated the shift in Catholic practice of only priests drinking from the chalice. In his time both priests and lay members would have needed wine.
- spthorn60 6y ago
  And too, the recommended "hemina" portion is apparently just over a half a US pint. Certainly not enough to replace potentially bad water in a diet.
  - baud147258 6y ago
    the "common knowledge" (which I have no idea how true it is historically) is that wine was diluted in the "bad water", not replacing it

analog31 6y ago

I'm sure it depended on geography and time period, but I've read that it wasn't always possible to drink water due to cholera. There may have been a necessity of mixing in at least some wine with the water, to disinfect it. Some have gone so far as to suggest that the arrival of tea from China, which required boiling the water, resulted in a bit of an intellectual boost in Europe. There were many monasteries where beer and wine making were part of their business model.

ta988 6y ago
Alcohol concentration would not be enough to kill cholera... Especially diluted. Strongest wines are usually in the 15-17% alcohol...
- jimktrains2 6y ago
  You have to boil the water which does in order to make beer and wine (and spirits).
  - samatman 6y ago
    Beer (wort, at this stage) is heated before fermentation, normally not boiled but enough to kill bacteria. Wine is normally made from pure juice, and isn't heated at any point in the process. But again, it's made from pure juice: the inside of a grape is not a usual place to find dangerous bacteria, and on the outside one would normally find only the yeasts which produce the fermentation. Modern wine-making washes the grapes thoroughly and adds yeast, the old-school method was simply to crush, and rely on the surface bloom and residual yeast in the vessel to do the work. Which lead to rather more vinegar than the modern vintner would tolerate.
    - peapicker 6y ago
      As one who has brewed beer for 27 years now, wort is definitely brought to a boil at the beginning of a brew to cause the ‘hot break’ proteins to coagulate. The wort is then held at a low boil or near boiling for 45-60 min after the bittering hops are added as those temperatures most efficiently allow the alpha acids from the lupulin glands of the hops to enter solution. Grape juice for wine, as it can’t be heated without ruining it, is usually lightly sulphited for a day or three before adding yeast, which kills the bacteria present in the juice.

jonah 6y ago

I've always liked Catholic writer G.K. Chesterton's take: “Drink because you are happy, but never because you are miserable. Never drink when you are wretched without it, or you will be like the grey-faced gin-drinker in the slum; but drink when you would be happy without it, and you will be like the laughing peasant of Italy. Never drink because you need it, for this is rational drinking, and the way to death and hell. But drink because you do not need it, for this is irrational drinking, and the ancient health of the world.”

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dr_dshiv 6y ago
Is this a good general rule for all drugs? Do them for happiness and only while happy; never when sad or for escape?
- dbtc 6y ago
  Maybe a good basis for differentiating “drugs” vs “medicine”?
  - memling 6y ago
    > Maybe a good basis for differentiating “drugs” vs “medicine”? Perhaps, although I don't think in the way I'd take your statement. Chesterton was quite opposed to the idea that drinking would be medicinal (although maybe he would have allowed that happiness is good medicine?). From the context[1]: > A new morality has burst upon us with some violence in connection with the problem of strong drink; and enthusiasts in the matter range from the man who is violently thrown out at 12.30, to the lady who smashes American bars with an axe. In these discussions it is almost always felt that one very wise and moderate position is to say that wine or such stuff should only be drunk as a medicine. With this I should venture to disagree with a peculiar ferocity. The one genuinely dangerous and immoral way of drinking wine is to drink it as a medicine. And for this reason, If a man drinks wine in order to obtain pleasure, he is trying to obtain something exceptional, something he does not expect every hour of the day, something which, unless he is a little insane, he will not try to get every hour of the day. But if a man drinks wine in order to obtain health, he is trying to get something natural; something, that is, that he ought not to be without; something that he may find it difficult to reconcile himself to being without. The man may not be seduced who has seen the ecstasy of being ecstatic; it is more dazzling to catch a glimpse of the ecstasy of being ordinary. If there were a magic ointment, and we took it to a strong man, and said, "This will enable you to jump off the Monument," doubtless he would jump off the Monument, but he would not jump off the Monument all day long to the delight of the City. But if we took it to a blind man, saying, "This will enable you to see," he would be under a heavier temptation. It would be hard for him not to rub it on his eyes whenever he heard the hoof of a noble horse or the birds singing at daybreak. It is easy to deny one's self festivity; it is difficult to deny one's self normality. Hence comes the fact which every doctor knows, that it is often perilous to give alcohol to the sick even when they need it. I need hardly say that I do not mean that I think the giving of alcohol to the sick for stimulus is necessarily unjustifiable. But I do mean that giving it to the healthy for fun is the proper use of it, and a great deal more consistent with health. [1] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/470/470-h/470-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/470/470-h/470-h.htm (search for "Omar and the Sacred Vine" -- chapter 7).

sixo 6y ago

"...But where the circumstances of the place are such that not even the measure prescribed above can be supplied, but much less or none at all, let those who live there bless God and not murmur. Above all things do we give this admonition, that they abstain from murmuring." But if we run out, above all there will be no complaining.