Was my drinking a sin?

[NewEnglandPriest]

I was just wondering if this is something I should take to confession. I started drinking that night with the intention of drinking more than my usual half to one whole beer, and just wanted to kick back and enjoy having the house to myself.

What do you think?

Thanks

I think you’re ok. You could take it to confession just to ease your mind, but it doesn’t sound like you drank yourself silly but rather just had a few beers to relax. It doesn’t sound like you endangered yourself or anyone else. Remember:

***There is nothing better for mortals than to eat and drink and provide themselves with good things from their toil. Even this, I saw, is from the hand of God. ***
-Ecclesiastes 2:24

 

[dje101]

I think you’re ok. You could take it to confession just to ease your mind, but it doesn’t sound like you drank yourself silly but rather just had a few beers to relax. It doesn’t sound like you endangered yourself or anyone else. Remember:

***There is nothing better for mortals than to eat and drink and provide themselves with good things from their toil. Even this, I saw, is from the hand of God. ***
-Ecclesiastes 2:24

Sounds good. I’ve never seen that verse until now. I kinda like it! Thanks.

 

[LucyLight]

You didn’t get drunk only tipsy so I wouldn’t worry about it. It’s good to know your limit. Most people drink to get a little tipsy (or as they say relaxed). I often get tipsy after one drink (I’m a light weight ) so by some people’s standards I shouldn’t be drinking at all .

 

[Keith_W_OR_USA]

Hi all,

So here’s the deal.

Last Saturday my family was out of town, so I had the house to myself. When I got home from work, which was about 1130pm, I dropped my stuff, made some dinner, threw on a movie, and had some beers. I was up till about 2 or 3 am, and I had about 5 or 6 beers. I did get tipsy, but I knew what I was doing. I didn’t do anything bad like watch things I should have avoided (got through 5 episodes of “The Office”), and then went to bed.

I was just wondering if this is something I should take to confession. I started drinking that night with the intention of drinking more than my usual half to one whole beer, and just wanted to kick back and enjoy having the house to myself.

What do you think?

Thanks

You abused alcohol. If you use something to escape reality and you become intoxicated it is an abuse. If you use narcotics or alcohol in a way to make you intoxicated then you are abusing it. You need to watch yourself because abuse of alcohol can lead to problems in your personal and/or professional life. Everything in moderation I always say.
As far as it being a sin I don’t know, but I always warn people not to abuse alcohol because it can lead to a lifetime of problems.

YMMV. IMHO.

 

[Cat]

Not the issue being discussed. I suggest that you start your own thread if you wish to discuss this rather than derailing this one.

Depends on how one defines “tipsy” or drunk. But the drinking of alcohol in moderation is not a sinful act. It is morally neutral. One must examine their own circumstances to determine if this morally neutral act affects their life in such a manner as to lead them into sin. They also must examine they life and the amount of alcohol they consume and determine if it is more than drinking it in moderation.

That is this is something that a person must determine for them self. What might be okay for one individual might not be okay for another.

I am not derailing anything. I’ll give it to you straight up.

The Bible makes it clear in many places that drunkenness is a sin. Note: I did not say “The Bible makes it clear…that drinking alcohol is a sin.” I didn’t say that. That’s not what the Bible says. But the Bible DOES say that drunkenness is sin.

In the United States, drunkenness is a measurable condition by lab testing. A certain level of alcohol in the blood means that the “tipsy” person in question is considered legally “drunk.”

Every person will vary as to how much alcohol they must consume before their blood alcohol level is high enough to call them legally drunk.

But tipsiness is generally a sign that if the person had their blood alcohol level measured, it would very likely be high enough to be considered legally drunk in the U.S.

If the tipsy person is “drunk”, it does not matter if they are causing harm or not. Drunkenness in and of itself, with no harm done to anyone, is called “sin” in the Bible.

Since the OP did not have their blood alcohol measured, there is no way for them to know whether they were legally drunk. But if they know, based on their degree of tipsiness, that they were not fit to drive a vehicle, then there is a good chance that they were drunk, and that is sin.

I can’t say whether it was mortal sin or not. It would seem not, since the OP was not deliberately attempting to become drunk, and it seems that the OP, along with many other Catholics, is not convinced that drunkenness is a even sin.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I am not derailing anything. I’ll give it to you straight up.

The Bible makes it clear in many places that drunkenness is a sin. Note: I did not say “The Bible makes it clear…that drinking alcohol is a sin.” I didn’t say that. That’s not what the Bible says. But the Bible DOES say that drunkenness is sin.

In the United States, drunkenness is a measurable condition by lab testing. A certain level of alcohol in the blood means that the “tipsy” person in question is considered legally “drunk.”

Every person will vary as to how much alcohol they must consume before their blood alcohol level is high enough to call them legally drunk.

But tipsiness is generally a sign that if the person had their blood alcohol level measured, it would very likely be high enough to be considered legally drunk in the U.S.

If the tipsy person is “drunk”, it does not matter if they are causing harm or not. Drunkenness in and of itself, with no harm done to anyone, is called “sin” in the Bible.

Since the OP did not have their blood alcohol measured, there is no way for them to know whether they were legally drunk. But if they know, based on their degree of tipsiness, that they were not fit to drive a vehicle, then there is a good chance that they were drunk, and that is sin.

I can’t say whether it was mortal sin or not. It would seem not, since the OP was not deliberately attempting to become drunk, and it seems that the OP, along with many other Catholics, is not convinced that drunkenness is a even sin.

The legal definition of drunkenness is irrelevant to this question unless he was trying to drive a car or perform some other action which is illegal to do while legally drunk.

What matters is the effect the alcohol had on him (assuming he correctly estimated what this would be as he drank it), the attitude with which he drank, and various possible extrinsic issues.

 

[Windmill]

The government is interested in keeping people off the roads if their judgement is impaired in the slightest. They drop the bar lower to keep the tipsy people off the road, so their definition of “drunk” is not what the Church would call drunk. Even if the government’s definition of drunkenness were the standard, it’s pointless to use that as a practical moral guide because you aren’t expected to carry around a breathalyzer whenever you go drinking.

The Church says that if you lose the capacity to determine right from wrong due to excessive drinking, then you are drunk. You have lost your moral compass. That’s a serious sin. However, if you are simply relaxed after drinking within your limits and your reflexes aren’t what they usually are, you are unfit to drive (by the government’s standards or anyone else’s), but that doesn’t mean that you are drunk and unable to avoid the occasion of sin due to loss of moral judgement. THAT’S what the Church is interested in.

 

[Apologista]

I think it’s a legitimate question. To the OP - are you a young person who was curious and this was your first time doing this? If so, now you know your reaction to alcohol for future reference. It might not hurt - nor do I think it’d be scrupulosity - to take it to Confession and then afterwards, just be sensible and more moderate on alcohol in future.

Then if you find you can’t be sensible when you want to, you should seek some help because you might have addictive tendencies - nip them in the bud if that’s the case before they do serious harm to your life.

The thing about being buzzed or tipsy is that, as others have said, it makes you impaired. This may be a bit farfetched, but not unrealistic - but say you had an emergency like a small fire from a candle or cigarette, something that if you weren’t tipsy you could put out quickly but if you were too slow in responding could become a big destructive fire. Or say your neighbor was having some emergency and you were unable to help. The Christian should try within the best of his or her ability to be wise and prudent and ready to help others. If you’re sick, that’s one thing, but if you deliberately impair yourself, that’s on you.

But again, I’m not trying to make you feel horrible, just want to point out some things to consider and I wish you all the best.

 

[clem456]

A couple of problems

1. You are drinking alone.
2. You are drinking 5 or 6 beers.
3. You are asking yourself the question, “is this a problem?”

Alcoholics would tell you that this dialogue is a sign of having a problem. If you think you may have a problem and are debating with yourself whether it is a sin or a problem, it probably is.

Is it a sin? We don’t know the state of your heart. Only you know that. Drinking 5 or 6 beers on a single occasion is not a mortal sin almost surely. However, if this type of behavior is an inordinate attachment , you can separate yourself from God’s grace and fall into related sins. Doesn’t have to be a direct sin like drinking and driving, it could lead to negligence of work or family. Obviously you are not praying the rosary after drinking 5 or 6 beers or doing an end of the day reflection!
Bottom line is, maybe you have to answer your own question with a little interior reflection.

 

[dje101]

The government is interested in keeping people off the roads if their judgement is impaired in the slightest. They drop the bar lower to keep the tipsy people off the road, so their definition of “drunk” is not what the Church would call drunk. Even if the government’s definition of drunkenness were the standard, it’s pointless to use that as a practical moral guide because you aren’t expected to carry around a breathalyzer whenever you go drinking.

The Church says that if you lose the capacity to determine right from wrong due to excessive drinking, then you are drunk. You have lost your moral compass. That’s a serious sin. However, if you are simply relaxed after drinking within your limits and your reflexes aren’t what they usually are, you are unfit to drive (by the government’s standards or anyone else’s), but that doesn’t mean that you are drunk and unable to avoid the occasion of sin due to loss of moral judgement. THAT’S what the Church is interested in.

I can honestly say that your second paragraph explains where I was at. I wasn’t drunk like I’ve been in the past, but my reflex and overall motor control is not where it normally is and I was definitely not fit to drive a car. Having the house to myself, along with the struggle of impurity, I knew I had the ability to watching things that I shouldn’t have. Even when I was drinking, I knew I shouldn’t watch those things, so I made sure to put on a clean TV show that I enjoy. I never lost track of what was right and wrong.

 

[dje101]

I think it’s a legitimate question. To the OP - are you a young person who was curious and this was your first time doing this? If so, now you know your reaction to alcohol for future reference. It might not hurt - nor do I think it’d be scrupulosity - to take it to Confession and then afterwards, just be sensible and more moderate on alcohol in future.

Na, not really, I’m 22. I don’t go out to the party scene with my friends (that has never been my thing) and I had just gotten home from a long day (and week) at work.

Then if you find you can’t be sensible when you want to, you should seek some help because you might have addictive tendencies - nip them in the bud if that’s the case before they do serious harm to your life.

I understand about possibly getting help if I seem addicted, but I really am not addicted at all. I think the last time I drank to the point that I felt like I needed a DD (which I had) was at a family party two weeks before Christmas, and I drank about the same, maybe a little less. I don’t like getting plastered. I did that 2 or 3 times and didn’t really like the whole “hangover” bit.

The thing about being buzzed or tipsy is that, as others have said, it makes you impaired. This may be a bit farfetched, but not unrealistic - but say you had an emergency like a small fire from a candle or cigarette, something that if you weren’t tipsy you could put out quickly but if you were too slow in responding could become a big destructive fire. Or say your neighbor was having some emergency and you were unable to help. The Christian should try within the best of his or her ability to be wise and prudent and ready to help others. If you’re sick, that’s one thing, but if you deliberately impair yourself, that’s on you.

But again, I’m not trying to make you feel horrible, just want to point out some things to consider and I wish you all the best.

Good points. There have been a lot of people randomly passing out around me lately, so maybe I should take it a bit easier.

 

[Bookcat]

catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=33231

catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=33754

Explains what is sinful…and what is venial and what is mortal.

 

[Digitonomy]

Explains what is sinful…and what is venial and what is mortal.

I think the statement is too vague in the absence of a definition for “excessive.”

It is a venial matter if one has reason for believing that this amount of drinking, though actually excessive, will neither deprive one of the use of one’s senses or of the power to distinguish right from wrong.

 

[Bookcat]

I think the statement is too vague in the absence of a definition for “excessive.”

In matters of temperance – persons, events etc can play into the determination. (Rather difficult to give a measure for all in where one moves from moderation to excess.)

The virtues of prudence and temperance must guide them.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a7.htm#I

(though I will note such is discussing more drinking and walking or sitting or standing….not driving that is a different matter)

 

[Digitonomy]

In matters of temperance – persons, events etc can play into the determination. (Rather difficult to give a measure for all in where one moves from moderation to excess.)

Despite wording that sounds like a fact-based assessment (“actually excessive”), the idea seems rather slippery, and I guess I’m having trouble imagining where his venial definition exists at all.

In the case of the OP, he had a substantial amount of beer. I think it’s fair to say it impaired his senses to some degree, and his ability to distinguish right from wrong. If he had to make a split-second decision, or had to assess a very complex ethical question, he would be slightly more likely to get it wrong than had he been sober. But it didn’t deprive him of his senses or his ability to distinguish right from wrong. So it clearly wasn’t a mortal sin. And even a single drink can diminish the abilities in question.

I suppose one could look for other ways to measure whether something is “actually excessive,” like whether he had the ability to pay for the number of drinks, or whether he left any beers for his hosts/guests, or whether others would be scandalized by the number of beers drunk. However, those seem like potential sins in their own right, not things that would push the drinking itself from the category of not-sin to venial sin.

 

[Windmill]

Despite wording that sounds like a fact-based assessment (“actually excessive”), the idea seems rather slippery, and I guess I’m having trouble imagining where his venial definition exists at all.

In the case of the OP, he had a substantial amount of beer. I think it’s fair to say it impaired his senses to some degree, and his ability to distinguish right from wrong. If he had to make a split-second decision, or had to assess a very complex ethical question, he would be slightly more likely to get it wrong than had he been sober. But it didn’t deprive him of his senses or his ability to distinguish right from wrong. So it clearly wasn’t a mortal sin. And even a single drink can diminish the abilities in question.

I suppose one could look for other ways to measure whether something is “actually excessive,” like whether he had the ability to pay for the number of drinks, or whether he left any beers for his hosts/guests, or whether others would be scandalized by the number of beers drunk. However, those seem like potential sins in their own right, not things that would push the drinking itself from the category of not-sin to venial sin.

Exactly.

 

[SecretaryMonday]

Wine is never a sin, as long as it is good wine. The Irish invented distilling, and they are catholic, so whiskey is not a sin. I would be concerned about beer though, if you are catholic. Germans tend to Protestantism.

 

[Bookcat]

Despite wording that sounds like a fact-based assessment (“actually excessive”), the idea seems rather slippery, and I guess I’m having trouble imagining where his venial definition exists at all.

In the case of the OP, he had a substantial amount of beer. I think it’s fair to say it impaired his senses to some degree, and his ability to distinguish right from wrong. If he had to make a split-second decision, or had to assess a very complex ethical question, he would be slightly more likely to get it wrong than had he been sober. But it didn’t deprive him of his senses or his ability to distinguish right from wrong. So it clearly wasn’t a mortal sin. And even a single drink can diminish the abilities in question.

I suppose one could look for other ways to measure whether something is “actually excessive,” like whether he had the ability to pay for the number of drinks, or whether he left any beers for his hosts/guests, or whether others would be scandalized by the number of beers drunk. However, those seem like potential sins in their own right, not things that would push the drinking itself from the category of not-sin to venial sin.

Yes there is both objective aspects and subjective aspects involved here.

“Actually excessive” there refers not so much to if one could afford it or if one was selfish (though sure that is one way one can be excessive–but as you note such more refers to other sins) but rather to the amount etc of what is drank or eaten. What is excessive for one is not excessive for another in food and drink. With temperance in food and drink it is not a 1 drink = moderation 5 oreos = moderation kind of thing. And various other factors I think can play into what is moderate. What is moderate (in food and drink) on a given Monday is likely going to look different than what is moderate at say a Celebration.

It is the virtues of* prudence* and temperance that must guide one.

 

[Bookcat]

Yes there is both objective aspects and subjective aspects involved here.

“Actually excessive” there refers not so much to if one could afford it or if one was selfish (though sure that is one way one can be excessive–but as you note such more refers to other sins) but rather to the amount etc of what is drank or eaten. What is excessive for one is not excessive for another in food and drink. With temperance in food and drink it is not a 1 drink = moderation 5 oreos = moderation kind of thing. And various other factors I think can play into what is moderate. What is moderate (in food and drink) on a given Monday is likely going to look different than what is moderate at say a Celebration.

It is the virtues of* prudence* and temperance that must guide one.

For new readers:

catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=33231

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a7.htm#I