Underage Drinking

A reader writes:

I have been debating a friend on why underage drinking is wrong even if it is in moderation and if its intention isn’t to rely on alcohol for a good time or fit in. 

He believes that the law is unjust because of the binging and rebellion that has occurred as a result of a drinking age (in his opinion.)  He believes that he is living a Catholic example best by drinking responsibly and showing others how to drink responsibly despite the fact that it is against the law.  He believes that by staying away from alcohol completely I am actually hurting the common good and God’s law. 

I personally feel that to help the common good and the law we should obey it, and we are in fact morally bound to obey the law as long as it does not threaten morals or directly contradict God’s law. 

Go with your instincts on this one.

There are several issues here:

1) At what age does it become appropriate to consume alcoholic beverages?

This is something on which the Church has no specific teaching. While it is certainly true that one should not partake of alcoholic beverages "before one can handle them," this tells us nothing about when specifically that is.

The drinking age varies widely by culture and, if I understand matters correctly, some cultures have no minimum drinking age. (Though that is not of itself proof of anything, because some cultures are pretty messed up.)

There are a number of possible ways of handling the issue. Among them are these: (a) The matter should be exclusively determined by parents, so that parents can determine when and how much alcohol their children should have and thus guide them into its responsible use over time, (b) the matter should be largely determined by parents, but with a minimum age of some kind, (c) there should be a minimum age that still is below the age of legal majority (18 in our culture), (d) a person should be able to drink when he reaches the age of legal majority, and (e) a person should not be able to drink until after he reaches legal majority.

It seems to me that Catholic moral theology permits an individual to
hold–as a matter of personal opinion–that any of the above are the preferred way of dealing with the
subject.

Civil law does not give a similar latitude to what people can actually do. Option (e) is what civil law requires in the United States. The U.S. grants legal majority to individuals at 18 years of age but does not (generally, so far as I know) allow them to drink until they reach 21 years of age.

This brings us to the next issue . . .

2) When can you break the civil law?

This is another subject on which there are different opinions, but one thing that is certain is that you’ve got a pretty high burden of proof to meet before you can excuse yourself from observing the civil law. There are two reasons for this: (a) except when a law is manifestly unjust, it participates in some manner in natural and divine law and compels obedience for this reason and (b) you’ll get punished if you get caught, so there is a prudence issue as well.

Since it seems to mee that Catholic moral theology would allow any of the options mentioned above (1a-1e) as legitimate ways of handling the drinking issue, it seems that Catholic moral theology would NOT HOLD that laws stipulating (1d) or (1e) are clearly unjust.

The premise of your friend’s argument (that it is unjust not to let people drink before they are 21) thus strikes me as very, very shaky.

Even if we were to grant his premise, though, that still leaves a third issue . . .

3) When can you break the law as an example to others?

If you need to meet a high burden of proof to be able to break the law yourself, you need an even higher one to break it as an example to others.

It would be one thing for parents to conclude–in spite of whatever local drinking laws there may be–that their children need a slow introduction to alcohol to prevent them from going nuts once they are out of the home and thus give them sips of wine or champaigne at Christmas and New Years in the privacy of their own homes.

It would be entirely another thing for them to start encouraging other people’s children to do this.

To conclude that you are not morally obligated to follow a particular civil law is one thing (and a thing which requires a HIGH burden of proof), but it is a whole new order of magnitude to conclude that you should break the law as an example to others.

Society hangs together because people obey its laws. Society depends on a generalized respect for the law.

To privately break a particular law involves some disruption of the social fabric, but to publicly encourage others to break the law involves a much worse disruption of the social fabric.

As a result, this requires a much higher burden of proof–not only that the law is unjust but that it involves SO MUCH injustice that action in public defiance of the law must be taken.

I therefore find your friend’s argument wholly unpersuasive.

Not only is the premise that it’s based on (i.e., that 21 as a drinking age is unjust) something that is very, very shaky but the idea is simply boneheaded that he–or you–should go around publicly breaking the law as an example to others to encourage them to break the law, too.

This is especially the case when we realize that we’re talking about young people: Even if you and your friend are sterling examples of maturity for your age (and your friend isn’t holding up well in this regard to my mind), the people who you would be influencing by your behavior probably are not all equally responsible.

To encourage them to start drinking under age would be to tempt them into situations that could cause them grave harm–like getting drunk and doing immoral things, putting themselves in danger of long-term alcohol abuse, tempting them to break other laws casually, and getting busted by the police.

Your friend’s argument that you are harming God’s law by not breaking civil law is simply absurd. Even if he thinks that it is his duty to publicly defy drinking laws, his trying to guilt you into doing so is preposterous.

Catholic moral theology would IN NO WAY hold that you have an obligation to break drinking laws in order to set an example for others.

It sounds more to me like your friend is seeking to rationalize his own giving of scandal to others and is trying to rope you into doing the same thing so that he’ll feel more justified in what he is doing.

That is such a serious lapse in judgment that it should lead you to question your friend’s judgment generally.

With friends like that, you don’t need enemies.

One added note: If you have not yet attained the age of legal majority (18) then you are most definitely still under your parents’ authority and thus should not be doing ANYTHING regarding alcohol or breaking the law contrary to their instructions. Their right under natural and thus divine law to direct you in such matters is unambiguous.

20

Author: Jimmy Akin

Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."

10 thoughts on “Underage Drinking”

  1. Jimmy,
    It seems that the drinking age law is not MANIFESTLY unjust, but I was wondering…
    when a law is widely flouted, and the group at which it is aimed have fair to decent arguments (voting, military service, marriage, etc.) and when the evidence of the good it does is shaky… is there a time at which one might start to call it unjust?
    I already think the law is silly, but agree completely with your analysis of the question above. I am more wondering when the law passes from silly to unjust; it’s denying a morally neutral action (drinking alcohol) to an age group based on an arbitrary standard which in many locales, is neither traditional nor customary. In addition, many states only continue to suppor the law becuase of blackmail, or rather a “protection racket” of sorts with federal highway dollars…”you sure have a nice interstate system there, Mr. Idaho…sure hate to see somethin’ happen to it…”
    Not arguing with your “20” just asking a question about laws in general.

  2. In my state, it is not illegal for a parent to allow his child to drink, even in public. (I’m sure there is an age limit on this also but I’m not sure what it is). I’m 30 years old. I remember when I was 20, my dad buying me a beer (one beer) at a bar. That was totally legal here. The bartender had no legal obligation to serve me but he could provide me a beer, since my father was ordering it, and was there with me.

  3. Jimmy-
    Thanks for affirming what I always thought about underage drinking with regards to Catholic teaching. It’s not an issue about alcohol at all. It’s about citizenship and our duties as citizens.
    I agree that it is a silly law, and my college years were pretty boring, but following laws that do not impede the path to Christ can only help us grow as citizens and as obediant servants of the Lord.

  4. Personally, I tend to follow the law even when it is widely flouted, such as the law that says pedestrians must always use the cross-walks. However, I have read in many pre-Vatican II manuals of moral theology that certain laws do not bind in conscience — e.g. there is no sin in disobeying them, per se. Rather, the only moral obligation is to accept the punishment if one is caught. So, if the act in question would be licit absent the law, then it is still licit even though illegal, as long as one accepts the punishment if caught. Austin Fagothey (Right & Reason) uses this principle to justify not paying excessive taxes.
    This view has always seemed a bit lax to me, but I have seen it repeated by many authors. Is anyone out there familiar with this principle and able to explain it?

  5. Personally I have always served my own children wine at dinner when we have wine, starting in their early teens. My own parents did the same. I think this makes more sense than giving alcohol the aura of the forbidden. I have had to prevent some of my older teenaged sons from giving their friends a beer at my house, explaining my responsibility under the law if they left the house driving under the influence and injured someone.
    In public it would make the most sense to obey the law. There are reasons for the law; teens are impulsive and often show poor judgment and alcohol can exacerbate this. Penalties for breaking the law and driving are harsh. One can have a good time without getting drunk. The arguments of the young man who said young people should drink to give an example of responsibilitiy are specious.
    Susan Peterson

  6. I must admit that I find appalling that you can’t touch alcohol in the USA until you’re 21. Then again, I also think it’s downright crazy to let those huge cars of yours in the hand of 16-year old kids 😀

  7. Just imagine allowing 16-year olds to drink alcohol legally AND drive SUVs.

  8. The question of breaking the civil law must raise the issue of Cardinal Mahoney activities, who has not only promised to break immigration law (which according to the Catechism is the busness of politicians)but he has or will order his priests to violate it also. This, because the immigration quotas aren’t enough for him. No one is outside our gate starving -it is a “I want a better life” issue. One can create moral reasons to violate all or any civil law. Roe V Wade isn’t the only immoral law we have.
    Perhaps exporting our technology and know how would create jobs elsewhere -it’s working in India and China -two formerly impovered areas of the world.
    The issue may lie in “teaching a man to fish rather than giving the man a fish.”

Comments are closed.