Question II: On drunkenness

Drunkenness is an excessive drinking of an intoxicating liquor, as I said in the preceding question.

I assert, first, that drunkenness is a sin mortal of its genus.

It is proved, first, by D. Bonaventure in speculo animae, cap. 3. from 5. ad Galat., who numbers drunkenness among the mortal works; and he adds: They who do such things shall not attain the kingdom of God.

Second, he proves it by the reason which D. Thomas also uses here, Tanner d. 3. quaest. 3. deg. num. 49., Valencia d. 9. quaest. 3. puncto 2. and others, and it is indicated by D. Isidore lib. 2. de summo bono, cap. 43. sent. 1. et 2., cited by D. Bonaventure lib. 2. Phar. cap. 12.: for he who, foreseeing the strength of the wine, makes himself drunk with it, voluntarily deprives himself of the use of reason, and consequently exposes himself to the perils of all sins. Hence Ambrose lib. 1. de Abraham, cap. 6. and it is related in 15. quaest. 1. cap. sane, where it is had: We learn drunkenness to be avoided, through which we cannot avoid crimes; for the things which we, being sober, guard against, being ignorant through drunkenness we commit.

The holy Doctor, however, observes ad cap. 2. Ioan. on these words: And when they had drunk, etc. In drunkenness there are three degrees. For the first drunkenness is unto a certain dimming of reason. The second is unto a heaviness and disturbance of the organs and heart. The third unto the subversion of reason. The first is venial, unless perhaps by reason of the person, or office, or time, as in the Levitical Priests it was during the time of their office, Levit. 10. Drunkenness in the second manner is dangerous; whence the Savior says, Lucae 21. Let not your hearts be weighed down with surfeiting and drunkenness. The third, however, is mortal, which he proves from 23. Prou. To whom is woe? whose father is woe? to whom strife? to whom the pit? etc. Do not these linger over wine, and study over cups to be drunk? and from 5. Isa. Woe to you who are mighty at drinking. Woe to you who rise early unto drunkenness.

It is certain, moreover, that when God intimates that there is woe on account of a grave crime, as the holy Fathers and Expositors commonly observe, especially S. Bonaventure in Evang. frequently.

The SAME is proved from D. Basil homil. 14., Ambrosiaster lib. de Elia, et ieiun. cap. 16., Jerome in cap. 5. ad Galat., Chrysostom homil. 57. ad populum Antioch. and homil. 18. in Matth., Augustine serm. 231. and 232. de temp., who all inveigh against drunkenness as a grave sin.

The holy Doctor also OBSERVES in speculo animae, cap. 3. that drunkenness can be without sin, if it was not foreseen invincibly. But if it was foreseen, and other sins follow, they are not excused. Hence also D. Augustine lib. 22. cont. Faustum, cap. 44. excuses Lot from drunkenness. But on this I treated in prima secunda, Tract. 1. disput. de voluntario.

They ask, however: Whether drunkenness for medicine is licit.

Cajetan answers here art. 2. that it is licit, because it is drunkenness only materially, since it is not for pleasure. The same D. Thomas has art. 2. ad 3., where he denies only that drunkenness is not licit for provoking vomit, because here it can be provoked by other means, as Tanner noted num. 53. He proves it, because if one may take a soporific drink, so in the said case.

He ADDS, however, that it is not licit for mitigating or not feeling pain in the cutting off of some member, or for tempering another grave pain; otherwise it would be licit to make drunk those who are led to punishment, after they have been disposed for death.

These things do not please me; for if it is not licit on account of the gravest pain to be tempered in mutilation, from which death often follows, I do not see when it would be licit for health; nor is that inference good concerning those who are led to death, who by justice are held to those punishments, and in the article of death need time for the acts of virtue unto repentance. In antiquity, indeed, wine mingled with myrrh was given to the crucified, which Christ would not take, as is said in the Gospel.

I ASSERT lastly, that the less drunkenness is voluntary, the more it diminishes the sin consequent upon it, and therefore when it is involuntary it altogether excuses from sin. So the holy Doctor in speculo animae, cap. 5., D. Thomas quaest. 150. art. 4., which they prove from D. Augustine lib. 22. contra Faustum, cap. 44., where he says that Lot is excused from incest on account of drunkenness, saying, Lot is to be blamed, not as much as the incest, but as much as the drunkenness deserved; and since this was involuntary, it follows that he is excused.

BUT if drunkenness was venially voluntary, the ensuing sins will not be mortal, because they are not themselves more voluntary than their cause, as Valencia notes puncto 2.

FINALLY, to make another drunk, either by directly inducing, or by indirectly inviting him to drink, when with attentive circumstances it can and ought to be foreseen that he will make himself drunk. So D. Thomas art. 1. ad 3., D. Bonaventure ad 2. Ioan., and others; for to cooperate in evil is the same as to do evil. So Ambrose de Elia, cap. 13., Augustine serm. 131. de Temp. and serm. 132. in Valencia.

The holy Doctor NOTES in the places cited above Hexaëmer. that the vice opposed to drunkenness by defect is unnamed, as also insensibility, which refuses the necessary delights of Taste and Touch, as the Philosopher teaches 2. Eth. cap. 7. and lib. 3. cap. 11.; and he gives the reason, because few are found who fall short in pleasures, and therefore this sin is rare.

But this sin CAN be mortal, if anyone from insensibility rejects the delights necessary for preserving life, as of food or drink, or for satisfying the debt of marriage. So D. Thomas quaest. 142. art. 1. and D. Bonaventure in serm. 5. Hexaëmer., Cajetan verb. Insensibilitas, Valencia quaest. 3. puncto 1.

Vasquez teaches, however, tom. 1. d. 227. cap. 3., cited by Diana part. 4. Tract. 6. Miscel. resol. 52., that certain actions of drunkards are not imputed to them, even if they had foreseen their drunkenness. Such are insults, from which no harm to a neighbor follows. Similarly blasphemies and perjuries, because these require to be done knowingly. The same opinion teach Salas prim. 2. tract. 13. disp. 5. sect. 14., Sayrus lib. 2. cap. 9. num. 41., Tanner prim. 2. parte 4. disp. 4. quaest. 3. dub. 3. num. 65.

To ME, however, this opinion is not proved, because these things are voluntary in cause, and they are true insults against God or neighbor. So Sanchez sum. tom. 1. lib. 1. cap. 16. num. 44., Medina prim. 2. quaest. 71. art. 5., Cajetan 2. 2. quaest. 150. art. 4. d. 2. Sanchez adds against Vasquez that fornication in dreams is to be guarded against, since it redounds to the harm of offspring, as Vasquez himself confesses that those things are to be guarded against which tend to the harm of a third.

DIANA judges both opinions probable.

He NOTES also, against Soto 4. d. 12. quaest. 1. art. 7., Medina prim. 2. quaest. 71. art. 5., Henriquez lib. 8. cap. 5 §. 1. in Glossa, litt. F., Sanchez de matrim. tom. 3. lib. 9. d. 45. num. 28., Salas prim. 2. tract. 13. d. 2. sect. 9., Becan prim. 2. tract. 2. cap. 3. quaest. 6., Tanner prim. 2. d. 4. dub. 3. num. 35., Suarez tract. 5. d. 3. sect. 4., that acts occurring in drunkenness, and all other things that no longer remain in the power of the doer, are not informed by moral malice, and therefore are not sins, but only effects of sin. Vasquez consents prim. 1. Tom. 1. d. 94. cap. 2., Azor Tom. 1. lib. 1. cap. 7. quaestio 1., Sayrus lib. 2. cap. 6., Herera in 2. disp. 20. quaest. 8., and Sanchez himself judges it probable. Tom. 1. lib. 1. cap. 16. num. 46.

YET I judge these things true only when, after the drinking, before he goes beyond, he has repentance, because the cause was intrinsic. So Soto in 4. dist. 12. quaest. 1. art. 7., Henriquez lib. 5. cap. 5. in Gloss. litt. H., Medina prim. 2. quaest. 71. art. 5., Becan prim. 2. tract. 2. cap. 3., Graff decis. part. 1. lib. 2. cap. 88.

INDEED Diana adds, with Soto above, Sanchez de matrim. tom. 3. lib. 9. d. 45. n. 29., Salas prim. 2. tract. 13. d. 6. sect. 8. num. 59. and others, that if before drunkenness, or before such sins follow, he confesses and accuses himself of the cause given, he is not afterward bound to confess, should such sins follow.

Henriquez ADDS that those sins do not even bring excommunication; but Vasquez teaches the opposite prim. 2. d. 94. cap. 4., Azor Tom. 1 lib. 1. cap. 7. quaesit. 1. and others.

Sanchez, however, LIMITS sum. tom. 1. lib. 1. c. 16. 24 that it does not proceed in sins already dissolved. The same Suarez teaches de Relig. Tom. 2. lib. 3. cap. 8. de excom. lata in periurium inadvertenter prolatum ratione consuetudinis.