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