Why is drunkenness a mortal sin?

[Epistemes]

Out of all the lists of mortal sins which Paul lists in his epistles, and of all the sins explicitly outlined by the Church, drunkenness is the one I take issue with - mostly because, in all honesty, I do enjoy having a few drinks.

The problem with such a mortal sin as “drunkenness” is that it comes in degrees, and it per se, has never been explicitly outlined as to what “being drunk” constitutes, except for Aquinas’ description that it involves the inhibition of reason. [Of course, coming from one of the most rational men who ever lived, I’m sure quite a lot would be unreasonable that isn’t necessarily sinful.] Such a description really begs asking, “When is there the inhibition of reason?”

If I have two full glasses of wine, begin to feel mellow: have I passed the line of drunkenness, or the inhibition of reason?

If I have three glasses of wine, begin to feel tipsy but am still able to walk straight, have I then passed the line of drunkenness, or the inhibition of reason?

If I have four glasses of wine, am more tipsy than before, but am still able to carry on a conversation, have I then passed the line of scrimmage?

I will confess that I have been drunk, to the point of near incapacitation, a couple of times in my life. I’m not especially proud of it, and have made confession and true contrition for these sins. However, I am only sorry for these sins because I know, by the teaching of the Church, that they are violations of God’s law. I, personally, don’t understand why having one extra beer, or glass of wine, or whatever, should be sinful if I’m in my own home, or have a designated driver, etc.

I mean, seriously, there is a point where a person can be just drunk enough to know they need not drive, but also not feel a threat to themselves or others by any other means.

And this gets back to my first paragraphs: there’s line in the sand saying, “At this point, you’re drunk and in mortal sin.”

If the line in the sand is the one that says, “When you’re completely incapacitated, are acting like a wholly other person, and committing multiple other sins in addition to your drunkenness, then yes, at this point you’re drunk,” then that seems like an awfully lot of slack…

Sorry if this wasn’t exactly coherent. Hopefully my point has been conveyed in fragments.

 

[promethius95945]

drunkeness CAN be a sin in the sense of the examples in the old testament… when one becomes too drunk to behave with the moral propriety expected of a Christian. Furthermore, ALCOHOLISM is DEFINATELY a sin, as I’m sure we can all agree on.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

The problem with such a mortal sin as “drunkenness” is that it comes in degrees, and it per se, has never been explicitly outlined as to what “being drunk” constitutes, except for Aquinas’ description that it involves the inhibition of reason.

If, when committing another sin, one of your excuses was that you were drunk at the time, you have committed a previous sin by getting drunk.

You must use common sense. You wouldn’t drink before driving, equally you wouldn’t drink more than a pint before going into a city street full of prostitutes and other temptations. Also physical dangers like muggers. However you might drink quite a bit more at a dinner party at home.

 

[Epistemes]

drunkeness CAN be a sin in the sense of the examples in the old testament… when one becomes too drunk to behave with the moral propriety expected of a Christian. Furthermore, ALCOHOLISM is DEFINATELY a sin, as I’m sure we can all agree on.

I can agree that alcoholism is a sin. I really think any addiction can be construed as sinful since it would technically mean that we would be, technically, setting up an idol before ourselves instead of worshipping God.

Having a few drinks to “feel good,” though, seems like a different story. Again, the line in the sand should be, “Not every day.”

I think the examples in the Old Testament are helpful as a benchmark. I mean, using somebody like Lot as a measuring stick, it basically meand don’t drink so much that you fall into a deep sleep thereby allowing your daughters the ability to have illegitimate intercourse with you.

 

[promethius95945]

Having a few drinks to “feel good,” though, seems like a different story. Again, the line in the sand should be, “Not every day.”

I think the examples in the Old Testament are helpful as a benchmark. I mean, using somebody like Lot as a measuring stick, it basically meand don’t drink so much that you fall into a deep sleep thereby allowing your daughters the ability to have illegitimate intercourse with you.

exactly. A few drinks to “feel good” not a problem. Slightly drunk, not a problem. Drunk enough to be improper and immoral… problem. That point is going to be different for everybody, but the objective criteria is the same.

 

[chris_molter]

I’m sorry, I can’t agree that alcoholism is a sin. Alcoholism is a disease; drunkenness (on the other hand) is a sin. An alcoholic is physically and/or mentally addicted to drink, however, if an alcoholic goes sober and stays dry his whole life, he still remains an alcoholic. Does that mean his alcholism is still a sin? Of course not!

A parallel would be homosexuality. Having same-sex attraction is not a sin, it’s a “disorder”. Acting on that attraction by fantasizing or engaging in same-sex relations would be a sin.

The same thing works for any tendency towards sin. Alcoholism is not the same as drunkenness.

 

[LSK]

drunkeness CAN be a sin in the sense of the examples in the old testament… when one becomes too drunk to behave with the moral propriety expected of a Christian. Furthermore, ALCOHOLISM is DEFINATELY a sin, as I’m sure we can all agree on.

I do NOT agree that alcoholism is a sin any more than I agree that DIABETES is a sin.

 

[NotWorthy]

drunkeness CAN be a sin in the sense of the examples in the old testament… when one becomes too drunk to behave with the moral propriety expected of a Christian. Furthermore, ALCOHOLISM is DEFINATELY a sin, as I’m sure we can all agree on.

Alcoholism is not a sin, its a disease.

Drinking your way into alcoholism is a sin.

 

[Cat]

I have a problem with drunkeness if there are children or teenagers around. I think it sets a very poor and dangerous example for them, and when you are drunk, you are not in proper condition to care for them. Don’t know if that’s an issue with the OP or not.

(Actually, for anyone who’s read some of my other posts, I have a problem with any use of alcohol, but I’m trying to keep that out of this thread.)

 

[NotWorthy]

Drunkenness is a sin because it eliminates what self control we may or may not have. Does that mean that we commit something sinful while drunk each time we drink? No. But it does mean we are willing to take that risk, and we should try and avoid sinning in any form.

 

[storm807]

Bar keep, another round!

 

[promethius95945]

Alcoholism is not a sin, its a disease.

Drinking your way into alcoholism is a sin.

as the child of a former (yes, former) alcoholic, I can attest to the fact that you don’t GET to alcoholism without drinking yourself there. People aren’t born drunk, they choose to go that route.

 

[rwoehmke]

Because it impairs reason. Most people who have a few drinks learn quite early in life just how many they can handle before they start acting in ways or saying things that they will be uncomfortable with the day after ( a little shame maybe). If you can’t remember the next day what transpired the evening before, I am of the opinion that a strong possibility exists that a mortal sin of drunkeness has taken place.Could happen once or twice maybe even three times but once you know your limit and intentionally go beyond it think “serious sin.”

Since alcoholism runs in families it may be a possibility that if thats a problem in your family that you might feel obligated to avoid alcohol entirely. I came from a family where my direct in the line relatives could drink sensibly and not get drunk. On the other hand I had a number of uncles who had a problem. It was very difficult for their families and today I have cousins whose lives have been screwed up as a result. My aunts for the most part put up with it, but their lives were a trial.

I married a woman whose mother and father overdrank. It left scars. My wife would get concerned if I had more than two drinks in an evening and I am a big guy and it takes a lot more than two to even feel buzzed. About 15 years ago I just quit drinking alcohol except maybe the rare glass of wine at a dinner out. I found out that I didn’t need the “lubrication” to enjoy myself and other peoples company.

Bottom line most people without a problem learn very early how many drinks are too many and which leaves their judgement impaired. Problem drinkers never seem to know how much is enough.

 

[Cat]

Getting back to a related comment about children:

If you are drunk, and something happens to someone, perhaps a choking incident or a fall, will you be coherent and coordinated enough to help them? I would want to be at my best mental state all the time to be in a position to help others if the need arises.

 

[Drifter99]

“Out of all the lists of mortal sins which Paul lists in his epistles, and of all the sins explicitly outlined by the Church, drunkenness is the one I take issue with - mostly because, in all honesty, I do enjoy having a few drinks.”

Drunkness is a sin because God said it was a sin, He does not want us to be Drunk. How can we do His will and His work if we are drunk?

“And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.” (Colossians 3:17) Can you get drunk in the name of Jesus and it be right?

“Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.” (1 Corinthians 10:31) Is there any glory to God in you getting drunk? -There are plenty of other things He allows us to enjoy in moderation that are not listed as sin. Anything we put above Him is sin.-

“Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.” (Matthew 16:24)

It is not about what we like, it is about what Jesus wants us to do, we must deny ourselves and our flesh and follow after Him without sin.

There are other things you can do to enjoy yourself rather than drinking. Ask the Lord to deliver you from this sin and He will, if you are willing to let Him. I used to drink myself.

In Jesus,
Daniel.

 

[Steve_M]

as the child of a former (yes, former) alcoholic, I can attest to the fact that you don’t GET to alcoholism without drinking yourself there. People aren’t born drunk, they choose to go that route.

There’s no such thing as a former alcoholic. Once you’re an alcoholic, you’re always an alcoholic. You might recover, but you’re still an alcoholic. You also don’t choose to go that rout. Alcoholics have a phisically different response to alcohol than normal drinkers do. That never goes away. Early in their drinking career, the alcoholic could probably quit. The problem is, they don’t realize where they’re headed. Once the alcoholicism is full blown, it’s too late. They did not choose to do that anymore than a person who overeats chooses to give themselves various illnesses. I say all of this as someone who is an alcoholic. Once you’ve gotten sober, if you’re an alcoholic, it is a mortal sin to drink alcohol, because of the “alergic reaction”, for lack of a better term, to the alcohol.

 

[promethius95945]

There’s no such thing as a former alcoholic.

Right, let’s see what the medical dictionary has to say:

Merriam-Webster’s Medical Dictionary -
Main Entry: al·co·hol·ism
Pronunciation: 'al-k&-"ho-"liz-&m, -k&-h&-
Function: noun
1 : continued excessive or compulsive use of alcoholic drinks
2 a : poisoning by alcohol b : a chronic progressive potentially fatal psychological and nutritional disorder associated with excessive and usually compulsive drinking of ethanol and **characterized by frequent intoxication **leading to dependence on or addiction to the substance, impairment of the ability to work and socialize, destructive behaviors (as drunken driving), tissue damage (as cirrhosis of the liver), and severe withdrawal symptoms upon detoxification
(emphasis added)

and as to not being able to be a former alcoholic, american heritage dictionary seems to say something contrary to that opinion:

American Heritage Dictionary -
al·co·hol·ic (āl’kə-hô’lĭk, -hŏl’ĭk) Pronunciation Key
n. A person who drinks alcoholic substances habitually and **to excess **or who suffers from alcoholism.
(emphasis added)

so, it would appear that from every authoritative source on the subject, one who is alcoholic is habitually consuming alcohol and a FORMER (or recovered, to use your own verbiage) alcoholic is someone who has managed to give up alcohol consumption. All personal opinions aside, congratulations on your recovery.

 

[Steve_M]

so, it would appear that from every authoritative source on the subject, one who is alcoholic is habitually consuming alcohol and a FORMER (or recovered, to use your own verbiage) alcoholic is someone who has managed to give up alcohol consumption. All personal opinions aside, congratulations on your recovery.

Treatment centers are a bit more authoritative than a dictionary, and every treatment center will tell you that once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic. Giving up the alcohol is part recovery. If the person starts again, they pick up right where they left off. I think we’re talking semantics here. You’re saying former because he doesn’t drink anymore, but he still can’t drink, because he’s an alcoholic. That’s what we call recovery. On the other point, thanks. Almost losing my arm in a car wreck woke me up. For a person like me, it would be a mortal sin to drink alcohol. I think we’re in agreement there.

 

[promethius95945]

Treatment centers are a bit more authoritative than a dictionary, and every treatment center will tell you that once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic.

I would disagree that a localized treatment center is somehow more authoritative than a medical dictionary compiled for standardized use of medical practice. I would also disagree that EVERY treatment center says as you do (since I know from association that this is not the case).

If the person starts again, they pick up right where they left off.

as a former smoker: agreed. however, after I quit smoking, i am not a “smoker.” I have an increased propensity to smoke, and decreased ability to resist addiction to nicotene, but that does not make me a “smoker.”

I think we’re talking semantics here.

i think so too. agree to disagree?

 

[NotWorthy]

Promo,

I started out drinking infrequently, but to excess. The limit kept getting higher. By the time I realized I had a problem, my 10 drink limit had gone to 20, then to 30, and then some. I’ve quit drinking now, Thank God.

But I know that if I take a couple of drinks right now, I would find myself testing those limits even further. I find that the first drink is the easiest to turn down, so I do.