L
Legionary90
Guest
Would being a designated driver for someone be immoral according to CCC 1868? The relevant quote it:
- Status
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Drinking alcohol is not immoral behavior.
I know when I am buzzed and thus not legal to drive I am not out of control nor acting immoral in any way.
I think it would be immoral to allow someone to drive while intoxicated.
L
Legionary90
Guest
But what if that person usually gets really drunk and I would be the one driving him/her TO AND FROM the party? I do not condone their behavior, my only intention is to get them home safely.
T
teachccd
Guest
I see where you are going with this but I would think it highly immoral to let an intoxicated person endanger themselves or other innocent people. If you know that your acquaintance is going to indulge in alcohol or drugs you are not encouraging the behavior because you volunteer to drive them home. You are allowing yourself to make a statement that you know that your acquaintance is impaired and cannot function properly. Chances are pretty good that if you do not drive that individual home they will still get drunk and find another way and that might not be the best choice…teachccd
L
Legionary90
Guest
Most likely they would find another way to get to the party and find a way home. Maybe the Principle of Double Effect would apply? For the record, I do advice whoever I’m driving that getting drunk is wrong and sinful.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Getting “drunk” is not wrong nor is it sinful.
That is depending on how one defines drunk.
Drinking to the point that it is illegal to drive is not sinful.
It depends on what you mean by “really drunk”. If it is to the point where the person no longer has control and or blacks out, then yes that is not right but would it be right to allow them to endanger themselves or others? I do not think so.
I do not think the principle of double effect is really needed here as they are going to do it with or with out you. With out you they may try to drive themselves, which could end very bad.
I do not think paragraph 1868 of the CCC applies here as you are not aiding them in their sin, unless you are supplying the alcohol. You are actually stopping them from committing a sin by not allowing them to drive.
M
Mattapoisett64
Guest
You could also be saving one or more lives considering the dangers of someone driving under the influence on the “return trip” from wherever.
V
Victorious
Guest
Drinking alcohol is okay in itself. All things being equal, I don’t think it’s immoral to drink to the point where you’re not safe to drive (as long as you don’t drive), as one can reach that point long before one’s reason is impaired. Personally, I don’t drink at all if I’m going to drive, just to be on the safe side; so if I have a glass of wine, I am thankful to have a friend take the wheel.
I think it’s when you deliberately and purposely get rip-roaring drunk to the point of losing your capacity to reason that you are on sinful territory. But since it’s possible to be unsafe to drive long before reaching that point (all some people have to do to get impaired is sniff the cork), I don’t see that being a designated driver is cooperating in sin.
I think it’s when you deliberately and purposely get rip-roaring drunk to the point of losing your capacity to reason that you are on sinful territory. But since it’s possible to be unsafe to drive long before reaching that point (all some people have to do to get impaired is sniff the cork), I don’t see that being a designated driver is cooperating in sin.
L
lovemysix
Guest
Your friends must either really like you or be really desperate for a designated driver, because I honestly don’t think I’d choose a friend who was going to give me a lecture to give me a drive home.
I don’t know the circumstances of your particular friends—maybe they get falling-down/passing-out/having-orgies drunk, in which case I, too, might feel the need to give them a lecture (but probably not while they were drunk, and I was driving them home
)I’m sure you didn’t mean to come across this way, but it does sound like you may be a bit scrupulous about drinking? There is nothing wrong with having a glass of wine or two with friends, and even feeling a bit buzzed by it. And no, I would NOT drive while buzzed and would love to have a friend care enough to drive me (but no lectures on the way home, please!
)
L
Legionary90
Guest
The reason I choose to be a designated driver is because I want to make sure all of my friends get home safe and that if they black out someone is able to take care of them. I will only continue being a designated driver if it is not sinful. I don’t advocate what they are doing, they get drunk to a serious point sometimes. I just got confused about CCC 1868 and thought that by driving them to the party that I may be enabling them and the CCC requires someone to hinder them.
I want to do the right thing.
L
lobster
Guest
This does not seem correct. It implies an obligation for one to drive for whomever he knows to be about to drive drunk. Having knowledge that ones friend is going to go to the bar and going to get drunk does not impose an obligation on someone to also go to the bar (a bar may be the last place one even wants to associate himself with) and drive for him.
In my case, I never go to the bar and I am not going to start so that I can drive them home safely, knowing that my co-workers go after work and get drunk.
W
Whitacre_Girl
Guest
Consuming alcohol to the point where you are no longer legal to drive is not sinful. You are still very much in control at .08. The debate of how drunk you have to be to sin is a very BROAD subject, since there are a billion degrees of drunkeness. I personally think that if you are drinking to the point of throwing up, blacking out, or risking alcohol poisoning, you are sinning in the way that other form of bodily abuse are sinful.
Being a designated driver is actually a very helpful and virtuous thing to do. I personally won’t drive if I’ve had any more than 1 serving of any kind of alcohol. I just dont’ want to risk anything behind the wheel of a deadly machine.
However, if the people you are being a designated driver for are under 21, that is another issue.
Being a designated driver is actually a very helpful and virtuous thing to do. I personally won’t drive if I’ve had any more than 1 serving of any kind of alcohol. I just dont’ want to risk anything behind the wheel of a deadly machine.
However, if the people you are being a designated driver for are under 21, that is another issue.
L
lobster
Guest
Not sure how it is something virtuous to do?
L
lobster
Guest
My take on it is if someone were to call because she made a mistake and got herself intoxicated and now needs someone to help her, then it would be virtuous to lend a hand, whether it be driving her home, cleaning up after her etc. I believe that is different than being a designated enabler.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Again, drinking until you are unable to drive, .08 blood alcohol is not sinful and helping out by being a designated driver is not enabling in any way.
I think to say otherwise is very offensive. You may not agree with the drinking of alcohol but that does not make it a sin.
L
lobster
Guest
It is not offensive to point out that there is no obligation for one to accompany someone to an alcohol establishment when knowing they are going there. Nor does the fact that consuming alcohol is not in itself a sin, make it ‘virtuous’ or obligatory out of Catholic charity to provide transportation to someone who is going to consume alcohol to the point of being legally unable to drive.
Of course it becomes a sin if done to encourage or enable others to drink to the point of intoxication.
Note I did not say that I do not agree with drinking of alcohol (what does that mean?). The Church does not label alcohol consumption an intrinsic evil.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Virtues are not obligatory so one can say that acting as a designated driver is virtuous.
You seem to think that acting as a designated driver is something bad as you keep using words like “encourage” and “enable”. Intoxication is a subjective term and is different for each person while a blood alcohol level of .08, which would make a person unable to legally drive, is not always incapacitating to a person.
E
erigby27
Guest
Not sure how this is even an issue. For a group of friends who know they will be drinking to appoint a designated driver is a very wise, responsible, and prudent thing to do. To serve as a designated driver for friends you know will be drinking is absolutely the right thing to do.
I don’t know where you all got the impression that being drunk is sinful. Yes, habitual drunkenness is sinful. Yes, chugging alcohol to the point where you black out is sinful. Someone could have 3 or 4 drinks, and be “drunk”, meaning he certainly can’t drive and is maybe a little loud and silly. But he probably can still walk just fine and hold a perfectly reasonable conversation without slurring his words. He’s not in a state of sin.
It’s not a sin to have fun. It is a sin to drive while drunk though, and even if you aren’t planning on being a designated driver, you have an obligation to recommend that your friends appoint one.
I don’t know where you all got the impression that being drunk is sinful. Yes, habitual drunkenness is sinful. Yes, chugging alcohol to the point where you black out is sinful. Someone could have 3 or 4 drinks, and be “drunk”, meaning he certainly can’t drive and is maybe a little loud and silly. But he probably can still walk just fine and hold a perfectly reasonable conversation without slurring his words. He’s not in a state of sin.
It’s not a sin to have fun. It is a sin to drive while drunk though, and even if you aren’t planning on being a designated driver, you have an obligation to recommend that your friends appoint one.
L
lobster
Guest
Lobster said: It is not offensive to point out that there is no obligation for one to accompany someone to an alcohol establishment when knowing they are going there. Nor does the fact that consuming alcohol is not in itself a sin, make it ‘virtuous’ or obligatory out of Catholic charity to provide transportation to someone who is going to consume alcohol to the point of being legally unable to drive.
Of course it becomes a sin if done to encourage or enable others to drink to the point of intoxication.
Note I did not say that I do not agree with drinking of alcohol (what does that mean?). The Church does not label alcohol consumption an intrinsic evil.
Of course it becomes a sin if done to encourage or enable others to drink to the point of intoxication.
Note I did not say that I do not agree with drinking of alcohol (what does that mean?). The Church does not label alcohol consumption an intrinsic evil.
Note the use of the word ‘or’. If I meant virtues were obligatory I would have used the word ‘and’. That does not indicate that it is virtuous to accompany another who intends to become intoxicated in order provide for their intoxication.
Here is what I said: “Of course it becomes a sin if done to encourage or enable others to drink to the point of intoxication.”
I define intoxication as drunkenness, which the Church forbids.
L
lobster
Guest
Again, it depends whether or not your actions are allowing others to commit grave sin.
Why do you say absolutely? As in not doing so would then be absolutely wrong. That was my question earlier. Where does the Church teach that it is obligatory to do so. Additionally, I do not see how it is virtuous to provide that someone become intoxicated.
Note that I pointed out that the Church does not teach that consuming alcohol is an intrinsic evil.
Your argument seems to be that appointing a designated driver serves only to avoid the sin of disobeying lawful authority which prohibits impaired driving. It is indeed a sin to drive while drunk, but also it is a sin to be drunk period. If ones reason is impaired to point of not being able to make required judgments while driving, ones judgment, and therefore will, is also impaired.
- Status