Is underage drinking a sin?

[EasterJoy]

I agree, the state has legitimate authority and reasoning to set drinking laws. However, I still cannot accept that the opinion of the state should overrule the opinion of my parents. This is a private matter. Once I leave this privacy, I commit an immoral action. But I can see no fault in either drinking a beer under my parents supervision or drinking a beer with my friend under his parent’s supervision and my parent’s consent. In this very private matter, the state needs to butt it’s head out. I will continue to say again and again that the best judgment on whether or not I can drink alcohol at this age is my parents. And, according to what I’ve learned about subsidiarity, this decision needs to rest with them, not the state. In this context, the family trumps the state, plain and simple. I’m not trying to make a legal case here. I’m not versed enough in law to do so. Morally, I believe I am justified in having a beer in the contexts I described simply because my family knows me better than those in my state capital. The state has no right to overrule the judgment of my parents in this particular case.

And personally, in allowing kids to drink with their parents, alcohol abuse would be go down. Instead of experimenting with alcohol at parties with drunk teenagers all around, those underage would become familiar with the substance in a safe and comfortable environment with their family. Alcohol then transfers from something to “rage” with to something to enjoy friendly company and special occasions with. I just don’t see the connection between teens drinking with their parents at home and an establishment of alcoholism.

Remember that allowing kids to drink with their parents has been tried. Drunk driving and alcohol abuse did not go down. If there had never been any problem, it would have been a transgression for these laws to have been passed, but there were huge problems that were getting both young drinkers and people sharing the road with them killed. Society is only going to take so much of that kind of tragedy before they quit caring about parental authority.

Since even the Orthodox Jews are having problems with teenage drinking in spite of centuries of very low incidences of alcohol abuse or alcoholism, I’d chalk this up to the current social climate, which glamourizes both alcohol abuse and the hobby of defying your parents in ways that particularly anger them.

Having said all of that, I live in a state where what you are describing is legal. I’d give my sons a beer occasionally, if they were 18. I would not think for one minute that it would make them less likely to abuse alcohol, particularly if they had enough to feel anything. The research does not bear that out. At best, their risk won’t go up. It’s kind of like letting them have desserts, which put them at a slightly higher risk for diabetes. Dessert is fun. You don’t need it, but it is enjoyable. A glass of wine with a meal enhances the meal. You weigh the risks, but you have to weigh in the risk that goes with taking joys out of life, too.

Let’s put it this way: If we were in Michigan, they wouldn’t get alcohol. If we vacationed here, they would get some. If we were vacationing in Michigan and a fellow parent gave their child the amount of alcohol you’re talking about, I wouldn’t say a word. My presumption in telling them how to parent when I was not asked for my opinion would be a FAR worse transgression than their transgression of judging that this was a reasonable time to bend the rules and commit a minor infraction. We are talking about real sins, here, but we are talking about venial sins. Make a decision and above all don’t obsess or harbor any uncharitable thoughts about the people on either side of the fence. That is where the biggest pit in this territory lies.

 

[underacloud]

OP, I found an older thread discussing underage drinking that you might find interesting:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=55529

Most relevant to your case I would look at post #67, as linked here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=671707&postcount=67

This quotes (at least claims to quote) Fr Heribert Jone’s book Moral Theology and seems to be something that might make your case justifiable, but I cannot find online a fuller quote from this section to provide the full context. Fr Jone’s book is not of course magesterial teaching but does (or did) carry the nihil obstat and imprimatur so can generally be trusted. It is a well regarded source.

You should try to find the more complete section and context before declaring this a knockout blow, but I think it looks pretty good for your case.

 

[EasterJoy]

OP, I found an older thread discussing underage drinking that you might find interesting:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=55529

Most relevant to your case I would look at post #67, as linked here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=671707&postcount=67

This quotes (at least claims to quote) Fr Heribert Jone’s book Moral Theology and seems to be something that might make your case justifiable, but I cannot find online a fuller quote from this section to provide the full context. Fr Jone’s book is not of course magesterial teaching but does (or did) carry the nihil obstat and imprimatur so can generally be trusted. It is a well regarded source.

You should try to find the more complete section and context before declaring this a knockout blow, but I think it looks pretty good for your case.

Yes, but it says this:
Common welfare demands that a law be morally good, possible of observance, and necessary for or at least conducive to the common good.

It is documented that raising the drinking age from 18 to 21 lowered the number of deaths due to alcohol-related accidents. Waiting to start using alcohol until 21 also lowers the incidence of alcoholism later in life. Laws forbidding 18 year olds from using alcohol do result in lower raters of alcoholism and alcohol-related accidents and deaths. Requiring citizens to wait until the age of 21 to start drinking has been demonstrated to be conducive to the common good, and it is hard to get around that.

Then it says this:
*"3. If a law becomes useless for an individual he is still obliged to observe it according to the much more common opinion

“. . . If however in an individual case the law is manifestly useless and non-compliance gives no scandal, one may follow the milder opinion and claim exemption . . . .”*

He doesn’t know the law is useless for him. The research says that his risk of developing alcoholism or alcohol abuse later in life does not go down when a person begins drinking earlier in life, as he supposes. The risk goes up. And how many people now going to AA meetings supposed when they started that they could never become dependent on alcohol?

Again: under the careful circumstances he is describing, it is probably a minor infraction. In light of how many tragedies have come from alcohol consumption by youth, even youth who began drinking with their parents, it is impossible to say this is a useless law that does not serve the common good. That is sad, I wish it were not true, but it is.

 

[underacloud]

The one difference I would note is that in the vast majority of States and many other countries he would be allowed to drink in the circumstances provided. So, I think it’s something of a judgement call as to whether these particular laws in Michigan are useless for the OP personally.

It’s either a very minor venial sin or no sin at all. But the OP has laudably stated that he likes to avoid all sin - as we all should - and thus the question as to whether it is a very minor venial sin or no sin at all is actually important.

 

[EasterJoy]

The one difference I would note is that in the vast majority of States and many other countries he would be allowed to drink in the circumstances provided. So, I think it’s something of a judgement call as to whether these particular laws in Michigan are useless for the OP personally.

It’s either a very minor venial sin or no sin at all. But the OP has laudably stated that he likes to avoid all sin - as we all should - and thus the question as to whether it is a very minor venial sin or no sin at all is actually important.

That is the thing. It is praiseworthy to desire to be entirely without deliberately chosen sin. I’m having a difficult time agreeing with his contention that his state has overstepped its bounds by being slightly more strict than other states. It has good reason for the law and good reason to believe that it will in fact have a measurably protective effect. He, meanwhile, cannot know with certainty that he would not benefit from waiting. A judge in his state would probably find his transgression and that of his parents to be minor, although few would go so far as to find it entirely inconsequential by throwing the case out. (Some might, though.)

 

[underacloud]

That is the thing. It is praiseworthy to desire to be entirely without deliberately chosen sin. I’m having a difficult time agreeing with his contention that his state has overstepped its bounds by being slightly more strict than other states. It has good reason for the law and good reason to believe that it will in fact have a measurably protective effect.

I completely agree. This is a just law for the common good and should in general be upheld.

He, meanwhile, cannot know with certainty that he would not benefit from waiting.

This is also probably true, but I think a person could, with clear conscience, decide otherwise in this case. eg if the person in question was used to drinking some alcohol, was of moderate to large build for an adult male, has no history of alcoholism in the family, had or was eating with the beer, and was consuming just a single beer with family, I’d be pretty comfortable to say there is no real risk of harm or scandal. I’m an Australian and the drinking age here is 18, so that might colour my comments a little. If the person was from a country or state where they regularly legally drink, I’d think the particular law in Michigan to say they cannot drink even with family is useless for them personally.

To be fair though, the term used by Fr Jone of “manifestly useless” suggests the bar is set very high and any substantive doubt would favour the law. The OP, by declining the drink, has certainly acted morally in this case.

 

[EasterJoy]

I completely agree. This is a just law for the common good and should in general be upheld.

This is also probably true, but I think a person could, with clear conscience, decide otherwise in this case. eg if the person in question was used to drinking some alcohol, was of moderate to large build for an adult male, has no history of alcoholism in the family, had or was eating with the beer, and was consuming just a single beer with family, I’d be pretty comfortable to say there is no real risk of harm or scandal. I’m an Australian and the drinking age here is 18, so that might colour my comments a little. If the person was from a country or state where they regularly legally drink, I’d think the particular law in Michigan to say they cannot drink even with family is useless for them personally.

To be fair though, the term used by Fr Jone of “manifestly useless” suggests the bar is set very high and any substantive doubt would favour the law. The OP, by declining the drink, has certainly acted morally in this case.

Let us say that he and his parents know this is a low-risk choice for the reasons you cited–for instance, let’s say they just moved from a jurisdiction that allows what he proposes to do, and there has never been any problem. In that case, his only sin is in knowingly violating a local statute that the local authorities did have the right to enact. It would be a bit like moving from a jurisdiction that has some set of circumstances in place in which the law gives you permission to ignore a stop sign or a speed limit to one that does not allow you to ignore stop signs even if you can see there is no one coming well before you reach the intersection or one that requires you to file a tax return even though you don’t owe any taxes. The primary violation is not violating the intention of the law, but simple disobedience to a law that is not as permissive as it might have been.

 

[underacloud]

Yes, I was thinking exactly that this is akin to say a “rolling stop” at a stop sign when it’s clear there is no traffic on the crossroad. And applying what Fr Jone said, one could make a case that it is no sin at all. But I’d really like to see the full section from Fr Jone.