suicide

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

I was doing some reading and I have a question. I've always been told that if you commit suicide, you are going to hell. But what I just read said that there can be extenuating circumstances that would prevent you from going to hell. How can any man know what they would be? Doesn't it say thou shalt not kill? How are laws of man...made up by men...going to contradict that? Who decides what those circumstances may be?

-- jackiea (jackiea@hotmail.com), August 02, 2000

Answers

Hi, jackiea.
It's nice to see your name and penetrating questions again!

In a case like this, it's usually good to turn to the Catechism for guidance. Here's what it says on the subject:

----------------
2280. "Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of. "
2281. "Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God. "
2282. "If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal. Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law. Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide. "
2283. "We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives. "
--------------------

So we can see that the Church condemns suicide as, objectively speaking, a mortal sin that can place a person outside the state of sanctifying grace, and this can lead to damnation. A person can choose hell as his final place of abode by persevering in "final impenitence." If he turns his back on God and salvation when it is offered a final time, refusing to be truly sorry for his sins (including suicide, if it is committed), then he commits blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and chooses hell.

However, notice that, in order to be damned, a person must die outside of the state of sanctifying grace. If a person is in the state grace, he can lapse from it only by committing a mortal sin. And he can commit a mortal sin only by a three-fold action:
1. committing an act that is a serious offense against God or neighbor,
2. knowing and reflecting on the fact that the act is a serious offense,
3. and deliberately choosing to do it anyway.

So, suppose a person commits suicide. Is he/she damned? If the person knows that suicide is a serious offense, reflects on that fact, and deliberately chooses it anyway, then the answer is "yes." But the Catholic Church says that she and we are unable to determine, in the case of any particular person, whether or not all the conditions were met. The Church cannot read the mind of the dead person, and (as noted in #2282 above) cannot know what only God knows -- namely, whether or not there were "mitigating circumstances" that could have led to "diminished responsibility." In other words, a person could have been in such an impaired psychological condition that he/she could not have performed sufficient reflection or could not have made a fully conscious, deliberate decision.

The Church formerly did not allow funeral Masses to be celebrated for those who had died by suicide, thinking that it seemed likely (though not certain) that they were damned. In the past generation or two, though, the Church has expressed a desire to hope that the dead person was so seriously disturbed as to have been unable to meet the three criteria of committing a mortal sin. The Church (as noted in #2283) also has been expressing a hope (though not a certainty) that even one who commits suicide in a mortally sinful way may have a very last opportunity to express perfect contrition for this (and all other mortal sins) to God, just before the separation of soul from body.

God bless you.
John PS: You are right in stating that one of the Ten Commandments is, "Thou shalt not kill." And suicide breaks that commandment. However, not every act of killing breaks that commandment. It becomes clear from many other Bible passages and from Apostolic Tradition that some killing is justifiable. The Church can and does guide us on this subject, because the Magisterium has the right, ability, and duty to interpret the meaning of the Commandments.

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), August 02, 2000.

Talking about suicide I read in a Psychology book somewhere that the person committing suicide is somewhat "out of his right mind", because suicide contradicts one of the basic human instincts: self preservation. That would be an atenuating circumstance and maybe the suicidal person is not fully consenting to what he or she does, or maybe he or she is not "totally aware" of the sinfulness of his or her action.

Some help from a person well versed in Psychology could be very helpful. Thank you

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), August 03, 2000.


For example: 1. In "Last of the Mohicans," the blond chick throws herself off a cliff to avoid being raped by her Indian captors.

2. In "Rogue Male," the hero throws himself off a cliff to avoid being re-captured by the Nazis, because he knows that he can't endure any more torture (having no fingernails left) & will only end up betraying his buddies.

So, in the movies at least, there are worse things than suicide, & cliffs tend to provide a handy escape hatch. Of course in real life it probably doesn't work that neatly. Oh well.

-- seen (too@many.movies), August 05, 2000.


3. In "Ravenous," the hero throws himself off a cliff to avoid being a meal for a cannibal, but later things get really complicated & he ends up... Oh heck, go rent it. Good movie if you like dark comedies.

-- I thought (of@one.more), August 05, 2000.

Hi, Mr. Movie Man (or Mrs. Movie Lady).
Thanks for those interesting fictional examples.
It may come as a surprise to you to learn that each of those characters, objectively speaking, committed a mortal sin in giving in to suicide.

Certain actions -- for example, suicide in every case -- are INTRINSICALLLY EVIL and can never be considered a good thing. And human beings are NEVER permitted to deliberately do an intrinsically evil thing in order to arrive at a good goal (such as avoiding rape, avoiding revelation of secrets, or avoiding being killed and eaten). We are expected to do all we can to shun the evil action (suicide) and to accept any consequent suffering (or preferably to escape, if possible).

Now, many people (perhaps the majority) would break under the psychological strain of the examples you gave. In such a case, if they were unable to reflect on what they were about to do (being unable to make an intentional, deliberate decision to commit the serious sin of suicide), but instead acted on an impulse of sheer terror or due to a lapse into insanity, they would not be held accountable by God.

May He bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), August 05, 2000.


John, You know I always appreciate and look forward to your answers. But I'm still a little stuck on this. You said "but instead acted on an impulse of sheer terror or due to a lapse into insanity, they would not be held accountable by God." Now, my question is this....How do you KNOW they would not be held accountable?

-- jackiea (jackiea@hotmail.com), August 06, 2000.

Catholic morality is far more flexible than people tend to think. It was explained to me this way: You are allowed to do whatever is necessary to avoid an imminent evil, such as, say, being raped. Throwing yourself off a cliff may or may not result in your death (you might actually survive), but it will definitely result in your not being raped; therefore, it is an acceptable action. Escaping evil is your primary motivation, whereas your own death is incidental to that action.

You also have the option of killing your attacker to avoid being raped. But you are not required to do so, just as you are not required to act in self-defense if your life is in jeapardy. You could even, for example, refuse to be treated for cancer or some other fatal but treatable illness. You have the option to act, or not to act, to protect your own life or honor.

-- that (same@film.buff), August 06, 2000.


Hi, jackiea and film buff. I will post separate answers to each of you.

Jackiea, you wrote: "You [John] said 'but instead acted on an impulse of sheer terror or due to a lapse into insanity, they would not be held accountable by God.' Now, my question is this....How do you KNOW they would not be held accountable?"

Ultimately I know it because it is what the Catholic Church teaches, and I have faith that Jesus founded the Church to lead us into truth on this and all other matters of morality. Part of being a Catholic is trusting the Magisterium to guide us -- so that each person, one after another, does not have to try to figure out the moral action to take in a given case. The Church teaches, using God's direct revelation or its own careful theological pondering over the course of centuries, how to help us know which actions are sinful and which are not.

You have asked about being held accountable. The Church speaks about moral accountability in #1860 of the Catechism, by stating:
"... The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest."

But even if I were of a different faith, not guided by these ancient Catholic principles of moral theology, I could still discern that the same or similar immoral actions may or may not be held against a person by God (as being punishable by damnation), depending on whether or not a "deliberate choice" is involved. Here are a couple of examples:
1. A guy is riding a bicycle and gets splashed with mud by a passing car. In a rage, he shouts without thinking, "G** d*** you!" Another guy has a bad relationship with a co-worker. They constantly argue or do things that offend each other. One day, the guy coolly and deliberately tells his colleague, "Man, I hope you rot in hell one day." [This is tantamount to saying that he hopes the man is damned by God.] Can you see that the first guy has committed, at most, a slight sin, while the other has probably committed a mortal sin, for which he would be held gravely accountable, even though their words were similar? The first man's responsibility was mitigated, perhaps even fully removed, by the passion involved.
2. A teenager has strict parents, and she is still under the threat of great corporal punishment from her father if she does something very bad. She has been brought up to know that abortion is wrong, and has been told that she will be punished and probably put out on the street if she becomes pregnant and disgraces Mom and Dad. Nevertheless, she unintentionally becomes pregnant. In tremendous fear of the consequences, and under additional threats from the father of the baby, she panics and has her baby murdered by an abortionist. A second teenager has been taught that abortion is wrong, but she is under no threat of being punished. She too finds herself pregnant, reflects on the morality of abortion, considers the consequences of giving birth to a baby, and then deliberately chooses to go through with an abortion for a variety of basically selfish reasons. Can you see that, for the first girl, "external pressures" (in the words of the Catechism) have either greatly lessened or even removed her guilt, while the second girl would be held gravely accountable by God, even though a baby has died in each case?

And so, in similar ways, the things mentioned in the Catechism ("promptings of feelings and passions" or especially "external pressures or pathological disorders") can be involved in a case of suicide, "diminish[ing] the free character of the offense." And "the free character" can be so diminished that accountability, in God's eyes, is lessened or removed entirely.

Jackiea, I'm sure that a more imaginative person than myself could think of many more examples, perhaps one or more pertaining to each of the Commandments.

I don't know if this helps you. I think that it's the best I can do. If I have not done well enough, you might consider contacting U. of D. and asking to speak to a moral theologian.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), August 06, 2000.

Jmj
Hi again, "Film Buff."
I think that some of what you have been told about Catholic morality is not quite right. Please let me explain what I mean by reviewing your message point by point.

You wrote, "You are allowed to do whatever is necessary to avoid an imminent evil, such as, say, being raped. Throwing yourself off a cliff may or may not result in your death (you might actually survive), but it will definitely result in your not being raped; therefore, it is an acceptable action. Escaping evil is your primary motivation, whereas your own death is incidental to that action."

When you originally presented a character throwing him/herself off a cliff, I thought that you had presented it, not as an attempted escape, but as a sort of "I-would-rather-be-dead" choice of suicide. Now you have presented the possibility of escape. I am not certain of the Church's teaching in such a case, and I am open to being corrected, but I will venture an educated guess: Only if the person being pursued has a reasonably founded hope of the possibility of survival would jumping be morally acceptable. If the person has no such hope, but knows that he/she would be bringing about certain death, then jumping would be immoral. It would be better to stand one's ground and attempt to fend off the imminent evil, or even be unjustly killed, than to kill oneself. You and I now may be in agreement on this.

Film Buff, you then wrote, "You also have the option of killing your attacker to avoid being raped. But you are not required to do so ..."

I don't think that this is correct. A woman being so attacked does not automatically have the option to go so far as to kill the attacker. It depends on whether or not she can resist in a different, lesser manner. Here is how the Catechism (at #2264) expresses the Catholic teaching [with my emphasis added]:
"Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow. [However...] If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful, whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful ..."

And this principle is reinforced in #2267, when the Church speaks with reference to "civil self-defense" against criminals:
"If, instead [of capital punishment], bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means ..."

Film Buff, you continued, "You could even, for example, refuse to be treated for cancer or some other fatal but treatable illness."

This seems to be too broad a statement, and so I could not fully agree with it. This "right to refuse" is not "automatic." Turning again to the Catechism, we find the following at #2277 and 2278:
"... an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder ..."
"Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of 'over-zealous' treatment..."

And so, I don't believe that a Catholic can always refuse to be treated for something treatable. As I read #2278, if a treatment is not burdensome, not dangerous, not extraordinary, and not disproportionate to the expected outcome, then it is a required treatment. Sometimes (perhaps often) this would be the case.

Finally, Film buff, you wrote, "You have the option to act, or not to act, to protect your own life or honor."

I don't believe that this is a "blanket" option that can be exercised in every case. The reason I say this is the following statement from #2265 of the Catechism:
"Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family, or the common good of the state."

Thanks, Film Buff, for an interesting exchange.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), August 06, 2000.

Thou shall not Kill. I have been told that the real translation should read "Thou shall not murder". The over-simplification of this seems to be something I would have been told as a child, and needs updating to an adult understanding.

-- Sean Cleary (sean_cleary@bigfoot.com), August 07, 2000.


Jmj

I have heard the same, Sean, on more than one occasion. The Hebrew word supposedly connotes "murder" or "unjust killing."
But if one wanted to retain the word, "kill," perhaps one could say ... "Thou shalt not kill the innocent and defenseless." [What better description do we have for a preborn baby or for the bedridden elderly?]
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), August 07, 2000.

I don't agree with your answer concerning the treatment for cancer or lets say a heart attack. I would think that if one did not wish to have open heart surgery or go through radiation with a questionable outcome, then it is his decision. This decision is the same as when one runs across the street and thinks he can make it or tries to swim to shore from a sinking boat. They have nothing to do with sin.

-- Stephen C. Kopp (qrsk@aol.com), December 30, 2002.

Hello, Steven.

You really dug up an oldie here -- last active in August of 2000!

You referred to "your answer" without naming anyone. I don't really know if you were addressing me, but I'll guess that you were -- and I'll guess that you were referring to a quotation a gave from the Catechism, followed by something I tried to derive from it. Please take a careful look at the words used here. I am going to quote myself from 2000 ...

"Turning again to the Catechism, we find the following at #2277 and 2278: '... an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder ...'
'Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of 'over-zealous' treatment...'

"And so, I don't believe that a Catholic can always refuse to be treated for something treatable. As I read #2278, if a treatment is not burdensome, not dangerous, not extraordinary, and not disproportionate to the expected outcome, then it is a required treatment. Sometimes (perhaps often) this would be the case."

[continued below]

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), December 30, 2002.


[continued]

Now, Steven, let's look at your examples. You wrote that you thought it would be OK to refuse certain treatments for "cancer or ... a heart attack. I would think that if one did not wish to have open heart surgery or go through radiation with a questionable outcome, then it is his decision."

Now look back at what I wrote. I think you'll find that I agree with you!
You see, "open heart surgery" could indeed be "burdensome" and/or "dangerous" -- so you could elect not to have it.
And, you see, "radiation [for cancer] with a questionable outcome" could indeed be "burdensome" and/or potentially "disproportionate to the expected outcome" -- so you could elect not to have it.

There are, however, many treatments for injuries/illnesses that are not burdensome, not dangerous, not extraordinary, and not disproportionate to the expected outcome. These, in my opinion, we cannot bypass -- and we especially cannot bypass approving of these for a child in our care.

An example? Suppose your young son is badly cut and direly needs a blood transfusion. Such a treatment would not be burdensome, not dangerous, not extraordinary, and not disporportionate to the expected outcome. To reject such a treatment [as I've heard members of at least one religious sect do] would be like pronouncing a death sentence on the child. That would be mortally sinful, I believe.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), December 30, 2002.


Well I hope not to offend anyone but I have had a relative who has just committed suicide and I am trying to find some advice I can give to my Catholic relatives who are very tormented. I have read your answers on suicide and determined sin is a personal matter between us and GOD. I believe it would be wrong for me to commit suicide. Giving up the life GOD gave me is essentially wrong but how can anyone but GOD be determine who goes to Hell and who goes to Heaven? The lessons in the Bible are rules we learn by and try and live by. Ultimatly though God knows the fate of each soul and has the CAPABILITY and DESIRE to forgive ANY and ALL sin. He wants the best for us all and is ready to forgive us when we realize our sin and then ask for forgiveness. I don't think we should concern ourselves with the fate of those who commit suicide. It is GOD position to pass judgement on this and all matters. The church is a place of support, teaching and faith and it should never turn it's flock away. We do a disservice to GOD to try and determine the fate of people other than our own selves. We are not GOD and are not privy to the circumstances surrounding the heart of the individual and the FAITH of the individual commiting suicide. We should try and help others and we should always offer the best advice based on the lessons in the Bible that GOD gave us but in matters of sin we are not the judge. Question: Jesus loved us and he died for us. Did he have to? No, he chose to, so he could give us the ability to be saved through him. Would I chose to say I knew that was the same as suicide? No way! GOD chooses what is sin and what is not, so when you make an argument on this subject, remember in the end, it is really just yours or a group of fallable humans belief on the subject. There may be logic to the argument against commiting suicide but there is no final answer as to what BECOMES of ANYONE that WE are qualified to make. I pray that GOD has guided me correctly in this response and it will serve his will.

-- Bill (bblevins@direcway.com), March 02, 2004.


You're quite right Bill. God will be the sole judge. I enjoyed reading your post.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 03, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ