The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1916-06-17
ANSWERED FROM THEORETICAL
AND PRACTICAL sTANDPoINTs
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH NOT
OPPOSED TO PROHIBITION.

Inefe are two sides TO proHlDlLloH,
the theoretical and the practical,
writes the Right Reverend John T.
Carroll, Bishop of Helena, Mont, In
the Anaconda Standard" From the
theoretical side, prohibition Is GER
tainly justifiable. First Of all, it is
not an infringement on personal lib
erty. 1t bears a relation to the COM
munity similar to that which the
pledge bears to the individual. BY
taking the pledge the individual pro-
hibits the use of intoxicating drink to
himself BY passing prohibition law
the community bars the use OF lntoxl-
eating drink to ITSELF Now. the COM
munity has as much right to take the
pledge as the individual. The fact
that not the whole community, but
only majority of the voters, as is
generally the case, favor the law is
no violation of the rights OF the MI
nority who oppose the laW-provided
just compensation be made to those
who, under the protection OF pre-
vious law, invested considerable money
in the manufacture of intoxicants. The
consumer does not suffer, because in
toxicating drink is merely a luxury
which does not promote his wealth,
his health or his happiness. Medical
science has demonstrated that alcohol
taken internally is neither food nor
medicine, and daily experience shows
that it is the most prolific source OF
poverty and misery. The pleasure the
moderate drinker derives from it's use
can justly be subordinated to the gen
eral happiness and we'll being of the
community Whenever, therefore,
majority of the community decide that
prohibition is the best remedy for the
evils of intemperance, they have
right to pass a prohibition law, and
such law is just.
Secondly, the manufacturer and the
dispenser of intoxicants cannot justly
contend that the community has mo
more right to suppress their business
than any other business" The liquor
business is not on the same level with
every other business. 1t is a danger
Gus business, like the business of sell
ing arms or poisons. 1t may exist only
by the federation of the community
and, therefore may be regulated or
suppressed, according to the will of
the community. This was the decision
rendered on November 10, 1890, by
| the Supreme Court of the United
States in the famous Crowley VS..
Christensen case. 1t may be found in
volume 1877, pages 623 and GA of the
United States Supreme Court report,
and makes instructive and interesting
| reading.
The church's Part.
Finally, the Church has made no
| law respecting prohibition. She de-
/ mands the practice of temperance.
| She regards total abstinence as the
| heroic form of the virtue of temper.
ance and encourages her members to
practice it. Witness the custom in
| this and many other dioceses of the
| United States of giving the children
the total abstinence pledge at the time
| of first communion and confirmation.
In the Third Plenary Council of Balti-
more held by the bishops of the United
States and approved by the pope, she
/ exhorted Catholics engaged in the
| liquor business ito abandon it and
| seek more honorable way of earn
| ing a living" But she has never made
any formal pronouncement regarding
the total suppression of the liquor
traffic, and she has no sympathy with
| the argument, advanced by extremists,
that drink and the liquor business are
in themselves evil To say, however
that she is opposed to prohibition is
to draw an unwarranted conclusion
both from her teaching and her legis.
lation. The truth is that she is in
favor of every just measure which
aims at the elimination of the evils OF
intemperance. Wherever, therefore
the people in their wisdom declare
prohibition to- be the most practical
method of dealing with such evils
prohibition cannot but have her bless
ing upon it. Happily the measure to
be submitted to the voters of Mon
Ioh1 IhA0 Aoll, Wy C@ASOpIAAo tAAO ."AAA~
for sacramento purposes, conforms to
the constitution of the United States
which guarantees the free exercise OF
religion.
1 The Practical Side.
Il From the practical side prohibition
! is justifable, if there is need for it
and if it is workable. There is q
need for it, if more moderate means Of
regulating the liquor traffic and mini
mixing or suppressing the evils that
flow from it prove ineffective. Fol-
prohibition is an extreme measure
and extreme measures are resorted tC
in practical government only in ex
. IRENE cases. Thus the American
, colonies threw off the yoke of British
. rule only when they could not obtain
redress for their grievances. Many o.
! the states have recently thrown of
the yoke of the liquor power, because
it pressed too heavily on their dearest
interests, social, moral and political
and because it refused to be lighteneC
by decent and reasonable regulation
such as early and Sunday closing ant
! the denial of intoxicating drink t.