Case XIV: Is It Lawful to Make Another Person Drunk?

A mother of a family was obliged to undergo an operation for the removal of a tumor from her arm. The tumor was a large one and had completely paralyzed the arm. The surgeon who was called in to perform the operation decided, after a thorough examination, that the woman's heart was too weak to stand a sufficient amount of ether to make the operation possible. He suggested that the patient take a sufficient amount of whiskey to intoxicate her, and that then a very small amount of ether would suffice for the operation. This the woman refused to do unless her parish priest himself gave her the whiskey. After hearing her confession and giving her holy Communion, the parish priest gave her a sufficient quantity of whiskey to intoxicate her, and then the surgeons etherized her a little and successfully removed the tumor. Now it is asked:

1. In what does inebriety consist?

2. Is it ever lawful to make others drunk?

3. What is to be said about this particular case?

Drunkenness consists in drinking enough of whiskey or other alcoholic drink to deprive one of the use of one's senses and judgment. When a man has consumed so much alcoholic drink that it deprives him of the use of his reason, so that he is no longer able to distinguish between what is right and what is wrong, he is said to be theologically drunk. Complete drunkenness is, as a rule, a mortal sin. The malice of the sin does not consist merely in depriving oneself of the use of one's reason, for that is allowed for sufficient reasons, but in depriving oneself of the use of reason in an unnatural and brutal way, by the inordinate use of intoxicating liquor, and that without any sufficient cause or justification. Where there is a just and adequate cause, it is not a sin to deprive oneself of the use of reason for a time. Thus theologians generally admit that whiskey or other intoxicants may be used as a substitute for chloroform, or to counteract the effects of poison. To drink to excess, but still not so as to lose the use of one’s judgment, is, in itself, and aside from other considerations, a venial sin. But even such kind of drinking may become a mortal sin, either on account of the harm one does oneself or the harm one does one’s family, or on account of the scandal such drinking causes, or other grave sins to which it leads.

2. Is it a sin to make others drunk?

Generally speaking, it is a sin to make others drunk, if we do so knowingly and willingly and without sufficient cause. But there are very exceptional cases when it is lawful to make another drunk. If we induce others to drink so that they become altogether drunk and lose the use of their reason for the time being, even though, while drinking, they are aware of what they are doing and of the result that will follow, we commit a mortal sin, because we cause our neighbor a grave spiritual damage, leading him into mortal sin. If our neighbor is not aware that he is being made drunk, then he does not commit a mortal sin and we do not cause him any Spiritual harm; nevertheless, we cause him grave temporal harm by depriving him, without his knowledge, of the temporary use of his reason; and that is a mortal sin. To induce another to drink until he is completely intoxicated, even though he knows what he is doing and that he is being made drunk, is to induce another to commit grievous sin, which is never allowed, unless it be for the purpose of preventing him from committing a greater crime, to which his mind is fully made up. Thus to prevent a man from committing a murder, which he is thoroughly resolved to commit, we may lawfully make him drunk. In this case we choose the lesser of two evils and diminish the crime of our fellow man, which is doing good. To be the occasion of another person's drinking to intoxication is not the same as being the cause of his intoxication. Still it is not lawful even to be the occasion of another man's drunkenness, unless there be a good and adequate justification. Otherwise, by being the occasion even of our neighbor's intoxication or inebriation, we commit a mortal sin against the love we owe our neighbor.

To deceive another and to trick him into becoming drunk, is to commit a grievous sin against justice and also against the virtue of temperance, unless it is done to prevent some greater crime. Thus it is lawful to make an insane man drunk, if he is violently insane and dangerous and there be no other way of controlling him until he is returned to the insane asylum.

3. As regards the case of this woman, the parish priest was justified in inducing her to take sufficient whiskey to intoxicate her, since it was done for a good and sufficient reason. The woman would have been perfectly justified in taking sufficient chloroform to anesthetize her; that is, to render her insensible and to deprive her, for a time, of the use of her reason. For the same cause she may take whiskey in order to produce the same state of insensibility, especially since her heart is too weak to support any other kind of anesthetic.

Especially was this lawful, since she had received the Sacraments and was in the state of grace and prepared to die. And even though the parish priest placed the woman in danger of dying while intoxicated, he did not do anything wrong or unlawful, since many people die on the operating-table or before coming out of the ether, and no one ever thought that, for that reason, it was wrong to put them under the anesthetic. The whole case hinges on the justification that there is for the temporary deprivation of the use of one's reason and judgment. All deprivation of the use of the reason is not wrong, but only such deprivation as is not justified by good and sufficient reasons. But to enable one to undergo a surgical operation, the use of whiskey is permitted by the theologians, just the same as the use of chloroform or other anesthetic, even though it deprives the patient, for a time, of the use of the reason and judgment. Therefore, this parish priest not only did not do anything wrong, in this instance, but did good.