Alcohol, How much is too much?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ColoradoCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Know your limit and only bring or give yourself access to that amount. Stay away from parties, there is a lot more sin going on there than you realize. Some may just be drinking alcohol, but others are using illicit drugs, fornicating, etc. I’m sure the girls are not dressed modestly either. Parties are breeding grounds for Satan. Satan loves a sinful party because the souls there are EASY! As Catholics we are soldiers for Christ, always ready to do battle. We need to remain vigilant at all times.
 
I know very well son, I have a lot of life experience. You are threading the line of sin. Your innocent parties can turn into a drunken orgy real quick. I’m not saying someone is going to be fornicating at next party or someone is snorting a bit of cocaine; but if you told me it happened, it wouldn’t surprise me one bit. I have seen it all happen so quick numerous times that were totally unexpected. My point is to understand that Satan looks for easy prey and parties where there is substances to be abused are very much to his liking. The point is to avoid occasions of sin, not dance around them. We should be running far in the other direction.
 
c4csp said:
Stay away from parties, there is a lot more sin going on there than you realize. Some may just be drinking alcohol, but others are using illicit drugs, fornicating, etc. I’m sure the girls are not dressed modestly either.
Click to expand...
We must attend very different sorts of parties.

Parties, laughing, dancing and having food and drinks, this is not evil. We are not some kind of Baptist / Holiness Pentecostal / teetotaler / temperance movement people.
 
TheLittleLady said:
We must attend very different sorts of parties.
Click to expand...
Ha! Right?! The parties I go to involve parents standing around complaining about how tough parenthood is while multiple children run around screaming at the top of their lungs for several hours.
 
Definitely when you can’t remember what you did the night before, waking up on the floor, waking up in jail, waking up lying on the street, or waking up with a massive hangover.
 
It is too much if you impair your judgment, damage your health, or create a hazard to those around you. If you kept your wits about you, I don’t think this instance was mortally sinful, but doing so again could well be, as you suffered a hangover as a result.
 
twf said:
In general, “how much is too much” is a matter of prudence and there is no one right answer. That said, the mortal sin of drunkenness is when one deliberately drinks to the point of impairing reason. It doesn’t mean getting tipsy. It means choosing to drink so much you can no longer clearly discern right from wrong. For me, as a big guy, that’s quite a lot of drinks… but I may want to limit myself for other reasons such as health.
Click to expand...
This is my understanding as well. The one drink theory is simply not true. The amount depends on your weight, tolerance, if you are drinking with food - it is different for everyone.

We do have to keep in mind though that you don’t have to be totally wasted for your reason to be impaired. If you would do something you wouldn’t do sober because your defenses are down and you are in a more vulnerable state, you’ve crossed the line in my opinion.
 
Fr Cogan in his work “A Brief Catechism for Adults” states that “getting drunk” is a mortal sin and “getting slightly drunk” is a venial sin (although he doesn’t provide a definition of “getting drunk” and “getting slightly drunk”) (the work has the nihil obstat and imprimatur).

https://www.amazon.com/Brief-Catechism-Adults-Complete-Handbook/dp/0895554925

Thomas Nelson in his book “How to Avoid Hell” also notes:

There are generally two types of drinkers: those who can drink moderately and those who cannot drink moderately, because if they have one or two drinks, they continue until they have lost control of themselves. This latter type of drinker has a grave obligation to cease drinking altogether.
 
LisaB said:
you’ve crossed the line in my opinion.
Click to expand...
You’ve crossed a line in that case, to be sure, but I’m not sure if its necessarily a grave sin. I think there’s a whole spectrum of “venial sin territory” before you get to the point of “cannot clearly discern right from wrong” (grave matter)…but of course, venial sin is to be avoided too.

There are so many factors. There have been many times in my life in which I have had some degree of a hangover… in many cases I believe I committed a venial sin of over indulgence the previous night, but not necessarily a mortal sin. In my case, as a large man, I can very easily drink to the point that I’m “hung over” (don’t feel great) the next day, but didn’t come close to losing my reason. Not saying that’s a good thing…its probably at least a venial sin…but for a man of my size / health / tolerance, it takes a lot more than a few beers to come even close to impairing my reason. A hangover? Could be a couple beers and not enough sleep…
 
Last edited:
Fr Callan and Fr McHugh in their work “Moral Theology” discuss the difference between “complete” and “incomplete” drunkeness (their work has the nihil obstat and imprimatur):

Degrees of the Sin of Drunkenness.—(a) The sin of perfect or complete drunkenness is a voluntary excess in intoxicants carried so far that one loses temporarily the use of reason. This does not mean that one must become insensible or fall in a stupor or be unable to walk or have delirium tremens (dead drunk), but only that one loses the mental power to direct oneself morally, even though one still retains enough judgment to direct oneself physically (e.g., to cross the street or ascend the stairs safely, or to find one’s own quarters without help). The indications of perfect drunkenness are that the intoxicated person no longer distinguishes between right and wrong, perpetrates evils he would abhor in his right senses (e.g., beats his wife, runs down a pedestrian, blasphemes, or provokes quarrels), and cannot remember on sobering up the chief things he said or did while drunk.

(b) The sin of imperfect or incomplete drunkenness is a voluntary excess in intoxicants carried so far that one is somewhat confused in mind, but does not lose the use of reason. Hence, a person who is physically impeded though not mentally incapable on account of drink, who staggers, speaks incoherently, or sees uncertainly, but who knows that he should not beat his wife, or kill, or blaspheme, or quarrel, etc., is imperfectly drunk. There are also circumstances that aggravate the evil of perfect or imperfect drunkenness. Thus, it is worse to be a toper or habitual drunkard than to be an occasional drunkard, and worse to go on a long spree than to be drunk only for an evening.

Malice of the Sin of Drunkenness.—(a) Perfect drunkenness is a mortal sin, because it is a grave disorder to deprive oneself of moral judgment and thus expose oneself to the danger of perpetrating serious crimes and injuries. Moreover, it is a monstrous thing to despoil oneself unnecessarily of reason, the greatest natural good of man, and to make oneself for the time being a maniac, more like a beast than a human being. St. Paul declares that those who would put on Christ must put away drunkenness with other works of darkness (Rom., xiii. 13), and that drunkards shall not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal, v. 21). The opinion that perfect drunkenness is only venial if not habitual is now obsolete, and the opinion that perfect drunkenness is not mortal unless it lasts a considerable time (say, more than an hour) is commonly rejected; for the essential malice of drunkenness depends on its nature, not on its frequency or duration. A person who takes enough to make himself completely drunk and then escapes the consequences by artificial means (e.g., by using a drug or bringing on a vomit), does not sin mortally by drunkenness; but it seems that such a swinish person must sin mortally by reason of gluttony, injury to health, or scandal.

continued….
 
Last edited:
(b) Imperfect drunkenness is a venial sin, because the harm done is not considerable, for a tipsy man usually suffers nothing more than a slightly fuddled brain and some unsteadiness of body. Indeed, if wine or beer produces nothing more than a spirit of moderate hilarity and talkativeness, there is no sin.

Accidentally, imperfect drunkenness may be a mortal sin by reason of circumstances, as when the person who is intoxicated gives great scandal on account of his position or office, or when the motive is to inflame passion or to commit other serious sin, or when the drunkenness is constantly repeated, or when the drunkard seriously neglects his business, family, or religious duties, or does other grave harm in consequence of his love of the bottle. In fact, there may be grave sin when one is not intoxicated at all, but is only a tippler. For the habit of drinking alcoholic beverages frequently (e.g., a nip or dram of whisky several times a day) is, according to medical authority, more harmful to the system (alcoholism) than intoxication at long intervals, especially if the portion is generous and the drinker is young.

Drunkenness Compared with Other Sins.—(a) It is not the worst of sins. Sins against the theological virtues are more wicked, since they offend against divine good, whereas drunkenness is against human good. Many sins against the moral virtues are worse, since they injure a greater human good; for example, it is more harmful to take away life than to suspend the use of reason.

(b) It is one of the most ruinous of sins in its consequences (see 2472, 2473): first, for society, since a large percentage of crime, insanity, destitution, and misery is due to intemperance; secondly, to religion, since indulgence in one sensual pleasure sharpens the appetite for others, while creating a distaste for spiritual things, for effort and self-sacrifice; thirdly, to the intellect, for strong drink steals away the mind and memory; fourthly, to the body, for drunkenness not only prostrates the nervous system at the moment and has most painful after-effects in bursting headaches and disabled stomach, but it also causes permanent disasters (to brain, heart, nerves, kidneys, and liver), weakens the resistance to disease and brings on an early death; fifthly, to goods of fortune, since drunkards squander their all for drink; sixthly, to posterity, since intemperate parents transmit constitutional weakness to their children.

continued….
 
Last edited:
Responsibility of Drunkard for Sins Committed While Intoxicated.—(a) If the drunkenness is fully voluntary and culpable, he is responsible for all the sins he foresaw or should have foreseen; for then these sins are willed in their cause. Hence one who is accustomed while under the influence of liquor to blaspheme, betray secrets, quarrel, etc., should confess that he committed them while drunk, or that he was prepared to commit them in getting drunk. Under similar conditions one who misses Mass because he was drunk is responsible for the omission; one who is too drunk to attend to a business appointment and thereby causes loss to another is held to restitution. But, if grave sins are foreseen only in a very confused way, generally they will be imputable only as venial in themselves.

(b) If the drunkenness is fully voluntary and culpable, but the sins that ensued were not foreseen and could not humanly have been foreseen, the drunkard is excused at least in part from the guilt of these sins. Hence, a person who gets drunk for the first time or who usually sleeps after getting drunk is not responsible for the bad language he uses, if the thought of profanity was farthest from his mind when he became drunk. But if this person was not completely drunk and had some realization of the malice and scandal of bad language, he is at least venially guilty of profanity and scandal.

Their work is available for free here:

 
Last edited:
I come from a quite traditional Catholic background, and noone in my family ever said drinking alcohol is a sin. I am an ethnic Pole and we usually enjoyed wine or even vodka during the Christmas eve.
 
TominAdelaide said:
(the work has the nihil obstat and imprimatur).
Click to expand...
However, that does not mean that the opinions expressed in his book are more than opinion. They simply mean there is no heresy and the Bishop’s reader approved it to be printed.

Mr Nelson also expresses his opinions.

The Church has never defined more than the grave matter of putting others or oneself in danger.

Remember in Scripture, in Acts when the crowd accused the Apostles of being drunk? How did the Apostle reply?

Did he say “we would never get drunk as it is a sin!!”?

Nope. They answer was (paraphrased) “Drunk? It is too early in the morning to be drunk!”
 
Excellent Resource thank you. That cleared up a lot for me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top