Is it mortal sin to drink underage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Luney123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So if I am father and want to have 1 beer with my son who is between 16 - 20, would that be a sin?
 
I’m not sure if this is valid or not so don’t rely on this anyone but I asked a priest only reddit and one of them responded with “I don’t see any grave matter here”
 
Last edited:
If it’s against the law, it shouldn’t be done. We are called to obey the law so long as it doesn’t violate divine law, which underage drinking restrictions (outside of Mass) doesn’t. It doesn’t matter whether it’s venial or mortal, all sin should be avoided, and if you’re going to shrug and do it just because it’s a venial sin, think again. All sin is offensive to God.

And sin is part of no one’s nature, boy or girl, man or woman. Sin is a corruption of our nature and it should all be avoided.
 
Last edited:
I’m just curious though(and I know if it’s venial I shouldn’t be doing it) but would you cojsider this mortal?
 
I would judge it venially sinful and extremely unwise, as there are severe penalties for providing alcohol to minors. If you wish to have a beer with your son, go somewhere where it is legal for him to drink. The summer before I started college, I vacationed with my parents in Mexico, where the drinking age is 18, so I could and did legitimately drink wine in moderation.
 
To be honest, I don’t know. It could be either for a number of reasons.
 
Well technically it is against the law for a minor to have alcohol underage and not for sacramental and medicinal purposes. Technically against the law so would it no then be a sin under the definition @Fauken gave?
 
What reasons would cause it to be mortal? If I’m just hanging with freinds and I’m not drinking to be drunk.
 
WA_Catholic said:
Well technically it is against the law for a minor to have alcohol underage and not for sacramental and medicinal purposes. Technically against the law so would it no then be a sin under the definition @Fauken gave?
Click to expand...
I would say venial sin perhaps yes. Mortal sin no.
 
If I had to guess, and these are only non-exhaustive guesses:
  • If one gets gets intoxicated out of spite to the law and/or ones parents.
  • If one gets intoxicated for the sake of getting intoxicated so that their mental faculties are compromised.
  • To follow off of the previous point a bit, to get drunk for the purpose of committing other sins.
  • As a result of scandal (“Well Joe Bob is a good Christian, he’s drinking, and he says the law’s stupid, so I can too.”).
  • Etc.
 
Last edited:
Pitcairn17 said:
To say that such is a mortal sin is to say that 17-year old boy cadging a beer from his older brother deserves the same eternal punishment as a doctor who has performed 1,000 abortions. Seems a little extreme to me.
Click to expand...
Incredible that I had to read all the way down to response 22 for someone to address the question that was actually asked. How does almost everyone on here fail to make the distinction between mortal and venial sin?
 
Last edited:
Fauken said:
If I had to guess, and these are only non-exhaustive guesses:
  • If one gets gets intoxicated out of spite to the law and/or ones parents.
  • If one gets intoxicated for the sake of getting intoxicated so that their mental faculties are compromised.
  • To follow off of the previous point a bit, to get drunk for the purpose of committing other sins.
  • As a result of scandal (“Well Joe Bob is a good Christian, he’s drinking, and he says the law’s stupid, so I can too.”).
  • Etc.
Click to expand...
What’s your rationale behind spite = grave sin? Is that based on something in the Catechism or Summa? As per the rest of it, it doesn’t necessarily follow that drinking requires getting intoxicated.

Obvious disclaimer: I’m not endorsing underage drinking, so nobody shoot me for that.
 
Obeying authority (and therefore laws) is a virtue and to not do so is a sin. This of course assumes authority and laws are just (not obeying a law to kill your neighbor is not a sin since the law is unjust). As such, I would say its a sin. As for mortal or not, that is something a priest could say, not myself.

But sin is still a sin, Even if underage drinking is “just” a venial sin, that still means its a sin and “nothing impure will ever enter Heaven, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful” (Revelation 21:27). Our goal should be to avoid all sins and not just mortal sins.
 
Socrates92 said:
What’s your rationale behind spite = grave sin? Is that based on something in the Catechism or Summa?
Click to expand...
It’s not simply spite = grave sin. It’s what it’s directed towards and why. For example, I as a lay Dominican am obligated to pray the Divine Office, but this obligation carries with it no pain of sin. However, it would certainly be sinful of me to not pray the Office because I hate the Rule/Dominicans/God.
Socrates92 said:
As per the rest of it, it doesn’t necessarily follow that drinking requires getting intoxicated.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say it did. I gave what I said was a non-exhaustive list of examples of what I think could constitute as a mortal sin.
 
Last edited:
TheLittleLady said:
No, because state liquor laws have religious practice exceptions.
Click to expand...
Well, most states do.

In Pennsylvania there are no religious exemptions and there are no family exceptions either. It’s simply illegal for anyone under 21 to receive. In my view, the lack of no religious exemption is unjust.

In the parishes near me, you can see the underage altar servers being skipped over when the Precious Blood is being distributed. But there are a few (mostly with Religious Orders) where an underage person will not be refused the Precious Blood if they present themselves for The Blood of Christ.

Furthermore, in PA, a minor can be arrested for underage drinking even if they never drank a drop, simply by being present where there is alcohol. But this only comes into play if they are at a party that gets broken up. So in theory, the designated driver can be arrested for underage drinking for simply being present, even if they didn’t drink a drop. Another unjust law.

 
Last edited:
You’re partially right actually. Post #2 does, although it doesn’t explicitly make any distinctions like you claim. All the rest up to post #17 (which I somehow also missed) do not though. Everyone is talking about whether there is an obligation to obey the state, and not the question of whether it is grave matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top