Mortal or Venial Sin When Impaired

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thomasbradley312
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Thomasbradley312

Guest
Hi all.
I have been reading the CCC recently and have come to a curiosity. A lot of things are considered grave matter, which I believe constitutes mortal sin if a couple things are met such as full knowledge of the sin and not being compromised, and also that force of habit could reduce it from mortal to venial.
My question comes from impairment. Alcohol it seems lessens culpability. If someone takes part in a sin such as using a ouija board while intoxicated it seems their judgment would be impaired and it wouldn’t be mortal even though it is grave matter.
This led me to wonder though, is that always an excuse? If someone murders or rapes in that case, is the sin actually intoxication as their judgment may have been impaired and thus the sin wouldn’t be mortal? That seems odd but that is kind of the notion I get reading it.
 
Last edited:
All mortal sin is grave matter. All grave matter may or may not be mortal sin, depending if the other conditions are met.
 
Thomasbradley312 said:
Hi all.
I have been reading the CCC recently and have come to a curiosity. A lot of things are considered grave matter, which I believe constitutes mortal sin if a couple things are met such as full knowledge of the sin and not being compromised, and also that force of habit could reduce it from mortal to venial.
My question comes from impairment. Alcohol it seems lessens culpability. If someone takes part in a sin such as using a ouija board while intoxicated it seems their judgment would be impaired and it wouldn’t be mortal even though it is grave matter.
This led me to wonder though, is that always an excuse? If someone murders or rapes in that case, is the sin actually intoxication as their judgment may have been impaired and thus the sin wouldn’t be mortal? That seems odd but that is kind of the notion I get reading it.
Click to expand...
A person should take care to not be indifferent to sin and should avoid the near and voluntary occasion of sin.
 
I think this is a good question. On thing to remember is that a force of habit or an accident is a bit different from impairment.

Aquinas has some interesting thoughts on this in the Secunda Secundae Q. 150,4. And they seem correct to me. It basically seems that the guilt imputed onto them by a sin committed drunk depends on the sinfulness of the drunkenness. For example, if one gets drunk without knowing it is a sin to do so (and is thus kept from full guilt) and commits a grave offense, then the guilt of the impaired offense is not imputed onto them as a mortal sin. But, if someone knows that it is wrong to get drunk but does it anyways (and thus sins mortally in the act), one is held guilty of the sin while impaired exactly as much as they are guilty of getting drunk.

The reason, it seems, is something like this: If you are forced onto a roller coaster, you cannot be said to be responsible for the queasiness that comes from all the hills and loops (though you still were sick, and probably should take a seat for
a bit), but if you board the coaster entirely willfully, knowing that it might make you sick, you were basically asking for it.

There are ways to think along different terms, but in this way. I hope this helps.
Best!
 
Last edited:
What a lot of people fail to understand is this is precisely why getting drunk is mortally sinful in itself. To choose to put yourself in a situation where you don’t have control of your own will is a grave matter. Even if you get drunk, and go to sleep. You are willingly saying "I give control of my free will away by poisoning myself…
 
People in the bible drank quite a bit.
You think Jesus and the disciples didn’t drink it up at the wedding at Cana?
 
Willfully compromising your judgment is itself a mortal sin, and it does not excuse acts committed under the influence.
 
Thomasbradley312 said:
People in the bible drank quite a bit.
You think Jesus and the disciples didn’t drink it up at the wedding at Cana?
Click to expand...
Not to the point of being so drunk that they lost control of their will, no.

If you are so drunk that you do or could do things you wouldn’t do sober, you committed a serious sin in itself.
 
Voluntary intoxication is the first sin. What follows is derived from the involuntariness of the first act: adding sin to sin. Ouija boards? I would worry much more about shouting out an invitation to the demonic than about how serious a sin drinking and what follows might be.

A contrite heart and confession can clear up the sin. The demonic is not nearly so easily dealt with.
 
Actually ‘getting drunk’ is grave matter for the confession. Whatever you do while impaired you are morally responsible for.
 
We cannot make blanket pronouncements about what constitutes a mortal sin for somebody. The person who committed the sin would need to discuss it with their confessor.

It’s pretty obvious that a rape or murder is a grave sin; getting drunk to the point where someone would commit a violent felony while drunk is also a grave sin. I don’t see a point to us sitting here trying to determine whether it’s mortal or not for somebody, when it’s quite clear there’s at least a good chance of its being mortal and the person should go to confession in any event.

The constant dithering on here about whether this or that sin is mortal is missing the point that God wants us to be free of sin, ALL sin, and if a sin is even approaching mortal territory, then even if it’s somehow still on the venial side of the line because of impairment or whatever, it is still a serious concern and needs to be confessed. Only a fool would say, “I committed this murder but I was drunk so I think it’s only venial and I’m not going to go to confession.”
 
It never fails that when pointing out that getting drunk is sinful people will point to drinking in the Bible. No where do I state that drinking is sinful. Of course Jesus drank. But the Church teaches that drunkenness is sinful. And it is obvious why.
 
Absolutely, as said above. The impairment is something that is quite likely to be something that is put there by God anyway as a trial or test… to be overcome and not something we do as a sinful excess such as overconsumption of alcohol or in fact gluttony of any sort. If God gives us the trial for instance of being tired and then we sin by becoming angry with someone who tests our patience then we don’t practice the virtues of humility, patience etc. but if despite being burdened with tiredness we are patient, kind and charitable then we have not sinned when impaired. Obviously this example is or can be both a minor and major impairment, you could also assault someone due to anger or murder someone in the heat of the moment. Ask any parent of a newborn, tiredness is not to be underestimated. Anyway this is just my take on things.
 
Last edited:
Thomasbradley312 said:
If someone takes part in a sin such as using a ouija board while intoxicated it seems their judgment would be impaired and it wouldn’t be mortal even though it is grave matter.
Click to expand...
Even if not “mortal sin”, the consequences of playing with fire can be burns.

Honestly, I think people use intoxication as an excuse many times. I have been every stage of inebriated in my years on this earth, from tipsy to puking/passing out. Never have been where I was not in control of my reason. My inhibitions might be lowered, but, I still consented to the things I did.
 
When you are drunk you have the tendency to fall to different temptations, probably most commonly lust or wrath. Being drunk therefore puts you at minimum in the near occasion of sin
 
Thomasbradley312 said:
People in the bible drank quite a bit.
You think Jesus and the disciples didn’t drink it up at the wedding at Cana?
Click to expand...
You do realize that
  1. It is possible for most people to drink in moderation and not end up drunk. You simply stop when you have reached your limit, you pace yourself, you drink with food etc. If you have an alcohol problem that causes you to abuse alcohol or be unable to stop once you’ve started to drink or react in a very bad way when you drink, then you should not drink.
  2. The Catholic Church does not prohibit or even frown upon the moderate use of alcohol in the proper social context; for example, in a social setting, not at your work, not while you’re driving, etc.
 
Last edited:
Thomasbradley312 said:
Hi all.
I have been reading the CCC recently and have come to a curiosity. A lot of things are considered grave matter, which I believe constitutes mortal sin if a couple things are met such as full knowledge of the sin and not being compromised, and also that force of habit could reduce it from mortal to venial.

My question comes from impairment. Alcohol it seems lessens culpability. If someone takes part in a sin such as using a ouija board while intoxicated it seems their judgment would be impaired and it wouldn’t be mortal even though it is grave matter.
This led me to wonder though, is that always an excuse? If someone murders or rapes in that case, is the sin actually intoxication as their judgment may have been impaired and thus the sin wouldn’t be mortal? That seems odd but that is kind of the notion I get reading it.
Click to expand...
You’re correct in coming to your question. Many people use and try and find, any possible excuse to twist words, or game the system for diminishing or exoneration themselves.

the passage quoted or referred to have further explanations.

Example (all emphasis mine)

1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.

As in, psych factors or social factors, such as a person has serious mental deficit. What we used to call mentally retarded.

AND further explanation about ignorance and habit. No excuse when

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

ALSO

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent . It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.
 
Last edited:
There is a certain level you can drink without severely impairing your reason. Individual mileage will vary. Was it St. Thomas who used the term “point of hilarity”?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top