Scrupulosity and drinking

[theodosius]

I was wondering if anyone could lend some advice to me regarding when drunkenness becomes a sin.

I suffer from OCD and scrupulosity. It took me a while to come to terms with this, but I’ve received a lot of good advice from this forum. Now, I do my best to limit my confession to once a month and I am always forthcoming in telling my confessor that I suffer from scrupulosity and am doing my best to only confess those grave sins of which I know are clear and certain.

This Fourth of July weekend, I overindulged and got drunk. I rarely drink, aside from the occasional beer with friends (it interferes with the antidepressants I take to manage my OCD). Long story short, nothing bad happened; but after deciding to have a couple of drinks at a barbecue, I found my self-control had crumbled and I gave in and had a few more drinks with friends, getting pretty drunk before the end of the night.

The next morning, I couldn’t shake the feeling of feeling terribly guilty for overindulging so much. I certainly wasn’t black out drunk or anything, and, as I said, I didn’t do anything sinful while drunk. However, as I hadn’t taken my medication the night before (as I was drunk and didn’t want to mix it with alcohol), my brain chemistry that morning was all out of whack and I certainly felt down and out.

I know that there is nothing sinful about having a few drinks. But I’ve been told before that willful drunkenness can be a grave sin. But when is this the case? If my original intention wasn’t to drink to get drunk, but after a few drinks, operating with diminished faculties, I decided to get drunk and let loose, was I then guilty of sinning gravely against God?

Or, is this simply a case of my scrupulosity reading something dire into a perfectly normal situation? Obviously, one shouldn’t make a habit of what I did, but is it more of minor moral indiscretion or a venial sin than anything else?

I ask only to get an outside perspective. I still have a few weeks before I’m due to go to confession again, and I’m not entirely certain if what I did was a serious wrong, or just a mistake of poor judgement not to repeat?

 

[kapp19]

In any event, make a good act of contrition - that’s a good thing to do two to three times a day anyway. It’s not good to think of how much/whether we sinned before we ask for forgiveness… God wants us to ask for forgiveness right away.

Did you know that you would lose inhibitions the way you did with whatever initial amount you had? My guess is no, so you should probably relax - unless you were really clearly thinking (or explicitly/clearly desiring), something like, “Yes, I want to drink a lot more/get really drunk, no matter the moral law," and had a good moment to reflect on that before going further. If that’s the case, then yes, I would suggest you probably did something quite serious. But my guess is that’s not the situation.

Anyway, now you know that when you drink x amount at the beginning, you are going to do something stupid, like drink a lot more. So don’t reach that point again - you are now better aware of your limits.

It’s hard to quantify a quality - but usually if you are really that drunk, someone will let you know. Otherwise, when it becomes difficult to think straight, let alone walk straight, it’s time to stop.

Try a two drink limit - without exceptions. That will keep you sociable and also free from excess.

 

[Maximian]

Any kind of overindulgence is the sin of gluttony.

 

[TominAdelaide]

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….

 

[TominAdelaide]

(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….

 

[TominAdelaide]

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:

Moral Theology by Charles J. Callan and John A. McHugh | Project Gutenberg

Also, 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 (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.