Why is drunkenness a mortal sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Epistemes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If it wasnt for all the encouragement I got on here, I might not have gone. I always had an excuse not to go.
Click to expand...
Keep on keeping on - it’s worth it. As for the drinking - I dunno, I don’t like the taste of alcohol and have only been drunk once in my life. I found out I was a happy drunk and very suggestable if you get my drift. Too dangerous for me, and like I said, I don’t like the taste. So I drink diet cola. It’s cheaper and I don’t get hungover.
 
outfctrl said:
Yes, I am Catholic. Baptized, 1st Communion and Confirmation. Joined the Navy and put my Faith aside.
I am back and will make it work. I go to confession every week and 8 am Mass every Sunday. Well, when I say every, this is my third time since I have been back…LOL

If it wasnt for all the encouragement I got on here, I might not have gone. I always had an excuse not to go.
Click to expand...
take it from me…there are ALWAYS a million excuses NOT to go…the truth is, every single one is a REASON to BE there and on your knees.
*THIS from the person who INSISTS she’ll make it there THIS sunday for SURE and STILL gets waylaid by lame excuses when the alarm goes off.😛 *
 
I prefer Beck’s. Being drunk is a sin because it makes you someone who you’re really not while sober. I like Vodka too, any brand I might add. Man I haven’t been drunk in years…I feel so old now.
 
Drunkenness is a filthy habit and horrible sin. It ruins lives, pulls down society, and deeply offends God. It’s one of the most hideous forms of drug-addiction and idolatry against the Creator. ***ALCOHOL IS THE ROOT OF MUCH EVIL IN THE WORLD. ***:mad:
 
Epistemes said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is the attachment to alcohol that is the sin. If you have to think about about how much you can have to drink and not sin; in order to justify having the drink…you have a problem.

Also your attitude. You are not looking at how it may affect your relationship with God, you are looking to satisfy your own desires.
 
you deliberately leave yourself open to hurt others, also yourself,therefore if you go out of your way to get drunk, yes it is a sin.however under certain circumstances one may unknowingly take to much, therefore no sin. I don’t agree that alcoholism alone is a sin ,it can be a disease and an illness
 
robert_ambrose said:
you deliberately leave yourself open to hurt others, also yourself,therefore if you go out of your way to get drunk, yes it is a sin.however under certain circumstances one may unknowingly take to much, therefore no sin. I don’t agree that alcoholism alone is a sin ,it can be a disease and an illness
Click to expand...
Epitemes – I have not read through all the replies, but the 1st thing I thought of is, why don’t you go ask a priest?
Or you could Ask an Apologist at that part of this site.

I recall hearing Bishop Sheen say in one of his talks,
“The difference between an alcoholic and a drunk is that the alcoholic can’t quit if he wants to; the drunkard drinks and says, I can quite anytime I want to, I just don’t want to.” Or something close to that.

I suppose the same thing would go for smoking pot (besides that is still illegal). It alters one’s sense of right and wrong, loosens our inhibitions to act prudently and dignified.

However, I would not have a problem for those who marijuana might help, such as someone with a disease in which the pot would help them with an appetite problem, or with pain relief, or glaucoma.

Mimi
 
Interesting discussion. And here’s my two cents. Drunkenness is a mortal sin because being drunk inhibits your intellect and takes away your free will. Those are the two things that make us like God. Take them away, and we become animals. If you doubt this, check out YouTube. There are any number of videos of teens who are falling down drunk crawling around and vomiting like dogs. Is that in keeping with human dignity?

Having said that, there is no easy answer on what is drunkenness. And I think that is the debate here. Just what IS drunkenness. You can have four people at a dinner table. And their metabolism and underlying personalities will be so different that three glasses of wine can make one person’s tongue flap at both ends and laugh loud and long, another person might get sleepy, and another person (I have seen this) have absolutely no reaction at all. And one person might be ready to jump into bed with the other three.

You can’t tell until you check your limits. However, God knows all things and plans for all things. And He put in a wonderful system of checks and balances on all of this so we do know our limits. It’s called The Hangover. Your body will tell you when you had too much. And that should be most people’s clue as to their limit. If they have suffered a hangover and still drink that much, then they are heading toward a problem. Because their desire to drink is overriding even their own personal discomfort level.

If two glasses of wine gives you a headache the next morning, only drink one. God has set your limit.

As for drunk driving… yes, many drink and kill. But that doesn’t make alcohol immoral. We had a horrendous accident in my city last spring. Some people killed and maimed. The teen driver was… talking on her cellphone. Does that make cellphones immoral? Should we ban them because some people think they can talk and drive? Matter of fact, they have determined the level of impairment of someone on a cellphone is equal to someone whose BAC is over the legal limit.

So what do we do about all those chatterboxes who are addicted to the sound of their own voice and cannot put the phone away when they start their cars?

Same with alcohol.

And I have had a few drinks in my life. Not all at the same time. And even when my kids are not with me, I choose not to drink so that if they called and there was an emergency, or I needed to drive them somewhere, I would be able to, no matter what the hour.

Drinking, drunkenness and alcoholism are all very different things. If you have to hide the contents of your recycle bin so the neighbors don’t talk on Saturday morning, maybe you have a problem.

But this is like a pair of jeans. One size doesn’t fit all. Like all other decisions in life, each person must account for their own choices, motives and behavior. If the amount of your drinking makes you less than human, less than charitable, less than loving, less than responsible… then it becomes a sin.

But teetotalling can be a vice too. If it makes you less than charitable and making comments on all those sinners over there drinking a glass of Chablis with their dinner and having a lovely, witty and sparkling conversation. If not drinking at all causes someone to have so much pride they judge everyone else, I say “Come on over and have a glass of wine. It’s on the house!”😃
 
I am the wife of a recovered alcoholic. I went to my first al-anon meeting when I was 19 years old. There is sin involved even for alcoholics -the lying that goes on to cover it up is definitely up there on the list. I do believe alcoholism is a disease but a very complex one that involves many factors. I do not believe calling it a disease is an excuse for bad behavior or personal weakness.

Even though my husband is an alcoholic the times I have actually seen him drunk I could count on one hand. It was a constant battle to say sober. He was in the Navy in the beginning of our marriage and I have the saga of letters that we exchanged that document the ridiculous roller coaster ride we were living and my husband’s painful and sincere struggle to stay sober.

I do not let those who scoff at alcoholism as a disease bother me anymore. They are probably the same people who scoff at anti-depressants to treat depression or any number of diseases they classify as personal weakness and think you should pull yourself up by your bootstraps and get on with life. They don’t understand. They don’t have the same life experience I have had and I’m glad they haven’t because it was heartbreaking and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.

My husband has been sober nearly a decade now. It was when he finally realized he was never going to be able to “handle” drinking. That this disease was never going to go away that he finally was able to remain sober. The wake up call was after being sober for two years having some drinks with a cousin and ending up in jail that night for drunk driving (and smashing our car into a pole -thankfully not injuring anyone).

There are problem drinkers and then their are alcoholics -there is a diffrence.

Too the original question -drinking too much lessens inhibitions and good judgement, it can damage your health as well.
 
***QUOTE:
"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?"***

If you are unsure how much liquor it takes to get you drunk, then you probably have a problem…

I’ll bet the cops could tell you with a simple breath test…
 
It’s been a while since the last post, but I found this thread through the Search option when looking for something.

I’d say if there’s a wish to get drunk and lose the ability to make conscious decisions, I’d say that’s mortal (excepting other factors). If one is tipsy but is not e.g. making a fool of himself, becoming more sexually available, vomiting all over the floor etc, then it’s not mortal (excepting other factors).

However, I have a problem with my own cases since my ability varies day from day and sometimes I can drink a whole lot without noticing, while half that amount can make me want to stop on another day. Another problem I have is intoxication as opposed to the loss of mental faculty - sometimes I can hold a conversation, remember things, even walk straight, but e.g. need to disappear in bathroom and discreetly get rid of the excess. Note: by “sometimes” I mean very rarely, but it happens once in a while. I generally have the willpower to keep able to make decisions and hold myself straight, but digestive problems are a bit of a different matter. So I sometimes end up having a problem finding out whether I crossed the line or not.
 
Epistemes said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is hard to understand the mortality of this sin, since as you drink, you lose the clarity to make rational decisions.

Now if you intentionally try to get yourself drunk, that is one thing, but it is hard to claim full knowledge and consent of gravity when your brain is impaired.

Still a bad idea.
 
He_Man said:
It is hard to understand the mortality of this sin, since as you drink, you lose the clarity to make rational decisions.

Now if you intentionally try to get yourself drunk, that is one thing, but it is hard to claim full knowledge and consent of gravity when your brain is impaired.

Still a bad idea.
Click to expand...
Maybe the first time or two the irrational decision may not be a mortal sin. Unless one’s mental ability is that of a box of rocks it should become obvious that ones capacity for making decisions after x number of drinks is very limited. To take in enough alcohol to reach that point then becomes very questionable. I would agree that it takes a little experience to measure ones capacity, but after that culpability rears its ugly head.

Watching the news in Minnesota and Wisconsin that covers the binge drinking in our High Schools and Colleges it becomes very apparent that many in this younger set are no longer testing their capacity. They are intent on getting smashed and brag about it. Some die from alcohol poisoning, at least four this past year, some in La Crosse by falling into the Mississippi, at least 8 or 9 students over the past couple of years. Back in the 50’s in College we drank but few set out intentionally to get smashed. The usual was two beers and a hamburger with fries and usually after the age of 21. The epidemic of young peoples deaths from alcohol is heart breaking.
 
rwoehmke said:
Maybe the first time or two the irrational decision may not be a mortal sin. Unless one’s mental ability is that of a box of rocks it should become obvious that ones capacity for making decisions after x number of drinks is very limited. To take in enough alcohol to reach that point then becomes very questionable. I would agree that it takes a little experience to measure ones capacity, but after that culpability rears its ugly head.

Watching the news in Minnesota and Wisconsin that covers the binge drinking in our High Schools and Colleges it becomes very apparent that many in this younger set are no longer testing their capacity. They are intent on getting smashed and brag about it. Some die from alcohol poisoning, at least four this past year, some in La Crosse by falling into the Mississippi, at least 8 or 9 students over the past couple of years. Back in the 50’s in College we drank but few set out intentionally to get smashed. The usual was two beers and a hamburger with fries and usually after the age of 21. The epidemic of young peoples deaths from alcohol is heart breaking.
Click to expand...
I agree, and you wouldn’t have much excuse after the first time or so.

My point is, let’s say you have sex outside of marriage due to being drunk to the point of passing out. Would the sexual act be a mortal sin since you were not of your right mind, i.e. you “didn’t know what you were doing?” Flimsy excuse, but valid in the sense of good judgement being impaired.

And if not, one could argue that getting drunk falls into the same category. for each drink you take, your ability to make sound decisons falls away.

Not saying this is theologically correct, just pondering more than anything.
 
He_Man said:
… one could argue that getting drunk falls into the same category. for each drink you take, your ability to make sound decisons falls away.

QUOTE]This makes a lot of sense in the real world, for alcoholics who drink more than they intend to. The combination of relaxation and impaired judgement may make them a bit blase about taking extra drinks (after starting), when they have work the next day.

As for the acts that happen while drunk, they are covered in the Bible, and I am sure there are plenty of commenatries on those Old Teastament passages where that exact thing happened. eg Noah’s drunkennes, the sisters getting their father drunk to have a child by him, etc.

Interesting that criminal law does not recognise diminished capacity to the extent that it used to.
Click to expand...
 
Yes and no, IMO.

Spiritually he may be more forgiving, but the temporal (?) aspect of the sin can remain. eg if one were to get drunk and impregante a woman or catch HIV. God does not prevent those natural consequences although he could.
 
davidarlette said:
Yes and no, IMO.

Spiritually he may be more forgiving, but the temporal (?) aspect of the sin can remain. eg if one were to get drunk and impregante a woman or catch HIV. God does not prevent those natural consequences although he could.
Click to expand...
True. Both have consequences, and offenses to Him have them after this life as well.
 
davidarlette said:
Interesting that criminal law does not recognise diminished capacity to the extent that it used to.
Click to expand...
Criminal law deals with a different kind of responsibility than a moral one these days. Even if it’s not exactly like in civil law (I mean contracts, torts etc, not the European system), it’s not “damages”, it sometimes takes years of prison on a similar level with monetary sums in damages and it operates on blame. The society believes people shouldn’t get away with things just because they got sufficiently drunk before, so it doesn’t happen. Exceptions sometimes exist for first-time drunks who didn’t know the effect of alcohol.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top