Case 6. Drunkenness

Titius had heard that voluntary drunkenness is not of itself and necessarily a sin, but only when someone gets himself drunk without necessity. Hence, when by misfortune he had broken his arm and was suffering the greatest pains from it, having no other remedy, he got himself drunk while the doctor who would treat the arm was being summoned. On another occasion, when for several nights he had taken scarcely any sleep, he got himself drunk and was sunk in a profound sleep for twelve hours. When he had also lost his dearest daughter by death and had fallen into great melancholy, he at length extinguished his grief by copious drinking to the point of drunkenness. Finally, when occasions of drunkenness were multiplying gradually and imperceptibly, moved by conscience he approached a confessor, who asks:

1. Is drunkenness intrinsically bad, and in what is its malice to be placed?

2. Is it lawful to make oneself or another drunk?

3. What is to be said concerning the case?

1. Is drunkenness intrinsically evil, and in what is its malice to be placed?

Yes; drunkenness is intrinsically evil, or, in other words, it is inordinate and wrong in itself; it is not wrong merely because it is prohibited. Its malice more probably does not consist in any single element, but in several. It consists in voluntarily depriving oneself of the use of reason for a considerable time by drinking intoxicating liquor to excess without good cause. The malice of drunkenness, then, does not consist merely in depriving oneself of the use of reason; we may do that both naturally in sleep and artificially by using an anesthetic for a good reason. Probably, at least, a man bitten by a poisonous snake may make himself drunk by way of antidote. But without sufficient cause to deprive oneself of man’s noblest attribute by worse than brutish excess in drinking intoxicating liquor is inordinate and wrong.

2. Is it lawful to make oneself or another drunk?

These are disputed questions among theologians. According to St. Alphonsus¹ a man may take intoxicating drink in order to expel bad humors from the body, even though he foresees that the drink will deprive him of the use of reason, but he may not take it to make himself drunk, for that is always intrinsically evil. However, other theologians, in keeping with what was said above, allow a man to make himself drunk for a sufficient reason. The only question will be about the sufficiency of the reason. As to the question whether it is lawful to make another person drunk, St. Alphonsus acknowledges that the opinion is probable according to which one may make another drunk even with his knowledge when it is the only means available to prevent him from committing a still greater sin on which he is determined.²

1 Book v, no. 76.

2 St. Alphonsus, book v, no. 77.

3. The case. Titius had heard of the theological doctrine that drunkenness is not always and necessarily sinful, but only when a man gets drunk without sufficient reason. He applied the doctrine first when he broke his leg and suffered great pain. Having no other remedy at hand, he made himself drunk till the doctor came and set the limb. Titius may be excused for this. On another occasion when he had got scarcely any sleep for several nights, he made himself drunk and slept for twelve hours. Some theologians would excuse Titius from sin in this case also; but it is preferable to say that he should consult a doctor, or take exercise in the fresh air, or adopt some other remedy, as taking drink in excess for sleeplessness would almost certainly lead to abuse, and therefore it must be forbidden.

In taking drink to drown his sorrow for the loss of a dearly loved daughter Titius committed sin. For such spiritual evils spiritual remedies should be used, or at least not such remedies as getting drunk; otherwise terrible abuses would creep in and have to be condoned. The confessor therefore will know what to say to Titius, whose wrong application of a right principle led to abuse in his own case.