Did Mary Get Buzzed at Her Wedding?

 It is a question I had never considered before. As the priest gave his homily on the wedding feast at Cana, noting that Christ's first miracle was meant to assist a wedding couple and their parents recover from what would otherwise be incredibly embarrassing, he mentioned that parents should not let their underage children drink.

Which poses a problem. 

What constitutes "under age"? Remember, the Code of Canon Law had, for centuries, established the minimum age of marriage for women at 12, for men at 14. The new 1983 Code raised each minimum age exactly two years (14 for women, 16 for men). These minimum ages were important because, among many centuries of pagan populations, the Catholic canon law standards actually RAISED the minimum age of marriage to twelve years of age. 

What we, in 21st-century America, would consider "pedophilia", all human cultures for most of human history considered "adult." This is true not just of marriage, but of alcohol consumption. The idea that twelve-year olds should not imbibe is relatively new, by historical standards.

We don't know how old Mary was when she was betrothed to Joseph and bore Jesus, but the apocryphal accounts put her somewhere between twelve and fourteen years of age. We don't know what betrothal gifts Joseph gave to Mary, or what betrothal gifts Joseph's own father gave to the new couple. We also don't know exactly when the two married, although it was presumably sometime between March and December. However, if their wedding was anything like the wedding feast at Cana, then Mary, Joseph and their families and friends all spent a week drinking wine and feasting.

As Aquinas points out, it is not a sin to drink alcohol "to the point of hilarity." That is, drinking until one is a bit buzzed, but not drunk, is perfectly fine. So, did the twelve-year old sinless virgin get buzzed at her own wedding? It is certainly possible. Indeed, this is certainly part of the point of having a wedding feast at all - to maximize and celebrate enjoyment without the loss of faculties, which is the very definition of "getting buzzed." It would not have been improper for her to celebrate her own wedding in a way that, without sin or loss of propriety, maximized the pleasure of the senses. Just as the BVM undoubtedly took deeper pleasure in a beautiful sunset than any of us can, so she would be more able to appreciate a good glass of wine than any of us. 

So, what would our priests say to the distinct possibility that Mary was a bit unsteady on her feet during her wedding celebration? How many theologians have speculated on the amount of wine a twelve-year old can safely consume during the course of a week's celebration of her own marriage? 

Now, one might argue that Mary, knowing herself to be pregnant, would not have consumed wine, which might have caused harm to the developing baby. But are the 21st century experts correct about the need for complete abstinence from alcohol during pregnancy?

University of Copenhagen researcher Janni Niclasen conducted a study on drinking during pregnancy and found improved behavioral and emotional development among 7-year-old children born to mothers who drank small amounts of alcohol. According to her findings, these children fared better in these areas than those born to mothers who did not drink at all while pregnant.

Researchers at the University College London also looked at the effects that drinking had on children born to mothers who drank while pregnant. Their findings showed that light drinking didn’t appear to have a negative impact on these 7 year olds’ development. However, the researchers did note that there is still no definitive amount of wine (or other types of alcohol) that is considered “safe” during pregnancy.

Mary, whose senses and rationality are not clouded by the consequences of sin, might well have been better able to judge this act than anyone alive today. If it is not a sin to get buzzed, and it is not, and, if small amounts of alcohol may actually be beneficial, and it may, then it is also not blasphemous to speculate about a twelve-year old woman's drinking habits. It simply isn't something the Christian Puritans of the 21st century willingly entertain as a conversation topic. Which is sad. For them. 

Why Conservatives Are Racists

Progressive Democrat: "Republicans, and conservatives in general, are racists."

Conservative: "Wait, what??!?"

Progressive Democrat: "It's obvious. Just look at the historical facts."

Conservative: "The historical facts are that the Democrats were the only ones to ever own slaves, the Democrats started the terrorist organization known as the KKK in order to subjugate blacks. The Democrats lynched anyone, white or black, who tried to help blacks escape Democrat subjugation, and the Democrats continue to this very day to support slavery and enforce segregation. 

It is the Democrats who refused to allow trade sanctions against countries that employ slave labor, the Democrats who refuse to denounce the Chinese for their slave labor camps, the Democrats who impose segregation under the name of 'safe spaces', the Democrats who wore, in the House rotunda, the kente cloth that was the mark of the African slave master and slave hunter. It was the Democrats who opposed civil rights legislation in both the 1870s and the 1960s. Progressive Democrats did all those things."

Progressive Democrat: "Yes, but that shows you Republicans and conservatives are the true racists, because you stood by and let us do all that. Only a racist would stand idly by while someone did those things."

Conservative: "But we didn't stand idly by. We fought culturally, legislatively, even fought an entire Civil War to try and stop you. We're fighting a cultural war right now, trying to stop you."

Progressive Democrat: "Yes, and you are failing miserably, which means you WANT to fail miserably, so you must be racists. You are purposefully allowing us to win. We take your medical care, your jobs, your freedom of movement. We break up your families, indoctrinate your children, burn your cities, especially the black neighborhoods and the black businesses in those cities. We mock the black men who try to protect black communities, especially the black men and women who put on police uniforms to do it. We call you insurrectionists and rebels, we throw you in jail without possibility of bail, parole or even trial, and yet, despite all of these advantages which we have freely gifted to you, you don't beat us and win. You must be failing on purpose, you fail to protect black people because you hate black people."

Conservative: "Wait, what about the fact that you, the Democrat Progressives, are the ones actually doing all of these terrible things?!"

Progressive Democrat: "Look, Mr. Conservative, I've had enough of your 'what-about-ism'. Don't try to shift the conversation away from your guilt. Your failure to stamp out racism shows that you are the true racist. 

We are the pure of heart, who have the courage to point out your sins. You are cowardly racists, so you aren't willing to face your sins. But we are. We speak truth to weaklings. We do this despite the accolades we will receive from each other. We don't want or need praise for our bravery, but we do demand it. If you don't praise us for having confronted you about your racism, that merely confirms how racist you truly are. 

Just consider the systemic racism evident in the use of violence. Our arson and murders are a sign of our good intentions, while your willingness to even clean up trash during your marches is a sign of your white patriarchal supremacist worldview. Admit your guilt!"

Conservative: "Alright, you have me. But society is to blame."

Progressive Democrat: "Agreed."