|
Objection 1: It would seem that drunkenness is not a sin. For
every sin has a corresponding contrary sin, thus timidity is opposed to
daring, and presumption to pusillanimity. But no sin is opposed to
drunkenness. Therefore drunkenness is not a sin.
Objection 2: Further, every sin is voluntary [Augustine, De
Vera Relig. xiv]. But no man wishes to be drunk, since no man
wishes to be deprived of the use of reason. Therefore drunkenness is
not a sin.
Objection 3: Further, whoever causes another to sin, sins
himself. Therefore, if drunkenness were a sin, it would follow that
it is a sin to ask a man to drink that which makes him drunk, which
would seem very hard.
Objection 4: Further, every sin calls for correction. But
correction is not applied to drunkards: for Gregory [Canon
Denique, dist. 4] says that "we must forbear with their ways,
lest they become worse if they be compelled to give up the habit."
Therefore drunkenness is not a sin.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Rm. 13:13): "Not in
rioting and drunkenness."
I answer that, Drunkenness may be understood in two ways. First,
it may signify the defect itself of a man resulting from his drinking
much wine, the consequence being that he loses the use of reason. In
this sense drunkenness denotes not a sin, but a penal defect resulting
from a fault. Secondly, drunkenness may denote the act by which a man
incurs this defect. This act may cause drunkenness in two ways. In
one way, through the wine being too strong, without the drinker being
cognizant of this: and in this way too, drunkenness may occur without
sin, especially if it is not through his negligence, and thus we
believe that Noah was made drunk as related in Gn. 9. In another
way drunkenness may result from inordinate concupiscence and use of
wine: in this way it is accounted a sin, and is comprised under
gluttony as a species under its genus. For gluttony is divided into
"surfeiting and drunkenness," which are forbidden by the Apostle
(Rm. 13:13).
Reply to Objection 1: As the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii,
11), insensibility which is opposed to temperance "is not very
common," so that like its species which are opposed to the species of
intemperance it has no name. Hence the vice opposed to drunkenness is
unnamed; and yet if a man were knowingly to abstain from wine to the
extent of molesting nature grievously, he would not be free from sin.
Reply to Objection 2: This objection regards the resulting defect
which is involuntary: whereas immoderate use of wine is voluntary, and
it is in this that the sin consists.
Reply to Objection 3: Even as he that is drunk is excused if he
knows not the strength of the wine, so too is he that invites another
to drink excused from sin, if he be unaware that the drinker is the
kind of person to be made drunk by the drink offered. But if ignorance
be lacking neither is excused from sin.
Reply to Objection 4: Sometimes the correction of a sinner is to be
foregone, as stated above (Question 33, Article 6). Hence
Augustine says in a letter (Ad Aurel. Episc. Ep. xxii),
"Meseems, such things are cured not by bitterness, severity,
harshness, but by teaching rather than commanding, by advice rather
than threats. Such is the course to be followed with the majority of
sinners: few are they whose sins should be treated with severity."
|
|