Justified Suicide?

[TheLordsSouljah]

So I was checking out an article on Syria and the whole jihad thing... and it talked about a particular bias for Islamic extremists to abduct and rape nuns.... and hundreds of them.... on the basis of their personal 'allowances' for fighting for jihad. This is obviously terrible and very horrifying.

 

However, the writer states that many of these nuns, to avoid this dishonour, killed themselves. I don't know about you, but I personally find that quite wrong and disturbing that nuns would commit suicide, even if to protect from rape. Is it really somewhat justified? Or is it just a culture thing? Was it wrong? 

 

I have no clue about the general reliability of the source, but it looked pretty stable. 

You can read the article here: http://mediachecker.wordpress.com/2013/12/12/islamic-jihad-on-christian-nuns-a-history/

[blazeingstar]

It is wrong

 

Suicide can never be justified.  The sin can be negated because of grave circumstances, but it cannot be justified.   How much in the future can these women kill themselves?  A minute, an hour?  And would the man still rape anyway?

 

This is not a solution.

[NotreDame]

Can you go back and check your source?  I don't see suicide mentioned in that link. 

[Basilisa Marie]

Like Blazing said, suicide is never justified, but there are times when circumstances mitigate your culpability for the sin.  A person really isn't acting freely if she's threatened with kidnapping and rape, is she? Of course not.  A person isn't acting freely if he's struggling with depression, either.  

[PhuturePriest]

Like Blazing said, suicide is never justified, but there are times when circumstances mitigate your culpability for the sin.  A person really isn't acting freely if she's threatened with kidnapping and rape, is she? Of course not.  A person isn't acting freely if he's struggling with depression, either.  

 

This reminds me of when a Dominican Priest spoke about the people who jumped out of the twin towers. They were under a lot of stress, they were certain they were going to die, and they were being choked by ridiculous amounts of smoke. No one could argue they were in a calm and stable mind to truly decide to kill themselves, especially considering a lot of people say they probably weren't even thinking about it; they were just in so much smoke that their reasoning skills were really limited and they simply thought outside = no smoke, so jump out the window and I can breathe again.

[blazeingstar]

This reminds me of when a Dominican Priest spoke about the people who jumped out of the twin towers. They were under a lot of stress, they were certain they were going to die, and they were being choked by ridiculous amounts of smoke. No one could argue they were in a calm and stable mind to truly decide to kill themselves, especially considering a lot of people say they probably weren't even thinking about it; they were just in so much smoke that their reasoning skills were really limited and they simply thought outside = no smoke, so jump out the window and I can breathe again.

 

But that's not even suicide...that is deciding that the risk of getting air is better than the risk of choking on smoke.  People on lower floors probably hoped they would survive, while people on upper floors, even those who could cognativly realize that a 40 story fall was fatal, probably hoped for the best.

 

Now if one did think "I'd rather die falling" that *could* be thought of as suicide, however, even though its illogical and impractical, they were still giving the chance for life the highest chance, especially when the flames and smoke were very hot.

[CrossCuT]

Suicide itself is a sin but you can never judge a persons soul even if the circumstances seem inevitable. 

 

[Anastasia13]

During the Armenian genocide, women might have to choose between having their belly slashed open and their fetus waved on the tip of a sword or being raped and killed without mercy or alternatively throwing themselves down a well or something. Rock meets hard place. Sufficient for me is to say Lord have mercy on the dead and protect us from ever having to make that decision.

[blazeingstar]

During the Armenian genocide, women might have to choose between having their belly slashed open and their fetus waved on the tip of a sword or being raped and killed without mercy or alternatively throwing themselves down a well or something. Rock meets hard place. Sufficient for me is to say Lord have mercy on the dead and protect us from ever having to make that decision.

 

But again, "jumping down a well" or "committing suicide" like in the NYC example is actually choosing the path that, however unlikely, is more likely to lead to life.

[TheLordsSouljah]

 

 

 After the Islamic conquest of Constantinople in 1453, according to eyewitness accounts, â€œMonasteries and Convents were broken in. Their tenants were killed, nuns were raped, many, to avoid dishonor, killed themselves. Killing, raping, looting, burning, enslaving, went on and on according to tradition.”

Ooops, I do apologize for one thing though.... it is a HISTORY of such violence, and so that incident was actually a few hundred years ago. But that doesn't really change the point.

[Aloysius]

In some ways I think, in situations such as these, our tendency as Roman Catholics with a deep Thomistic/Scholastic heritage to want to systematically define actions such as these feels rather inadequate.  Not that an exercise in defining whether such a thing is sinful in theory is wrong--on the contrary, it is definitely good to reinforce to us all that suicide is always wrong and never a viable moral option.  But when it has happened, I take from the story the tragedy of it all... technically my inner systematic unreconstructed ossified manualist with a Thomistic mind says their culpability for that sin was mitigated... but on a deeper level I just basically understand it and am certain that Our Lord understands it too, and that He himself received those souls through a divine economy not needing to purify or forgive a suicide so much as simply receiving and healing women who were not so much the actors of the sin of suicide against themselves, but basically more like victims who were killed by tragedy.  

 

Just a different perspective, the systematic one about mitigating circumstances works too, though.  and when we're talking about jumping out of the Twin Towers, for instance, Blazeing's explanation is kind of like a principle of double effect explanation from a systematic Thomistic perspective--they didn't mean to kill themselves, they merely intended to get out of the fire and the unintended double effect was dying from falling.  while that is certainly a proper way to systematically define why they wouldn't be culpable for suicide, I would prefer a perspective of divine economy here too... yes one can't ever intend to commit suicide, but I feel Our Lord isn't dealing with it as if there's a systematic criteria which they had to have satisfied so they didn't commit the sin of suicide so much as simply understanding the tragedy of it and not therefore impugning any fault.  I guess what I'm saying is either a difference in perspective, or maybe just a difference in semantics in just the words being used, who can tell, but either way I find it an edifying way of thinking about it and meditating about Our Lord's love for us and His understanding of our humanity through His incarnation.

[mortify ii]

Like Blazing said, suicide is never justified, but there are times when circumstances mitigate your culpability for the sin.  A person really isn't acting freely if she's threatened with kidnapping and rape, is she? Of course not.  A person isn't acting freely if he's struggling with depression, either.  

 

When does a person act freely?
 

[Basilisa Marie]

When does a person act freely?
 

 

Well, in a perfect situation, when one is completely free from the pull of sin.  That's one reason why Mary was completely free in her fiat to be Christ's mother, because she wasn't hampered by any connection to sin. 

 

So I guess in some sense, we're never *truly* 100% free to make these decisions (quantitatively speaking), but I think when moral theologians say someone has to choose something "freely" for it to count as a mortal sin, they mean that there isn't something large enough obstructing their view of reality or influencing them to the point where their judgment is totally compromised.

 

It's worse if I kill my sister in cold blood than if I did it because I was angry with her because the anger is influencing my decision to kill her, but they're both mortal sins if my anger isn't strong enough to completely override my judgment.  In situations with suicide, it seems to me that there's usually some element of depression or other influencing factor that is so strong that it overrides a person's survival instinct.  Because your survival instinct is usually really strong, most of the time it would take something being seriously wrong (whether it be internal, like depression or external, like the threat of death by fire) to override that instinct.  So generally speaking, I think most people err on the side of people who commit suicide not being entirely culpable for their actions.  Ultimately, only God knows. 

Edited January 10, 2014 by Basilisa Marie

[mortify ii]

So I guess in some sense, we're never *truly* 100% free to make these decisions (quantitatively speaking), but I think when moral theologians say someone has to choose something "freely" for it to count as a mortal sin, they mean that there isn't something large enough obstructing their view of reality or influencing them to the point where their judgment is totally compromised.

 

Yes that's what I was getting at, you can render it in such a way that we never act freely and therefore no sin can be mortal. Humans don't exist in a vacuum, there are numerous subconscious influences and factors that affect our judgment and will. Ultimately though we make a choice that can truly be said to be our own, and in this respect we are responsible. It's a very complicated matter though, and you mention the example of choosing between falling to one's death versus being burned alive in a burning building, to what degree is this choice free given the circumstances. Perhaps a person touched by the flames would instinctively, without exercising their will, run away from the fire and thereby fall to their deaths, but what if there is actual choice involved, to the extent that a person has time to choose which way they prefer to die. It's a horrifying thought, one wonders how God would judge the person who chooses to plummet instead of face the flames, but given the situation I can't imagine a loving God not showing mercy.

[NotreDame]

Ooops, I do apologize for one thing though.... it is a HISTORY of such violence, and so that incident was actually a few hundred years ago. But that doesn't really change the point.

 

Certainly Islam's history is one of violence, rape, kidnapping, pillaging, and enslavement that began with Mohammed and continues until today... I was more curious about the reports of Nun's killing themselves.  I followed the source on the Nun-suicide to this link.  It's attributed to an essay by a Canadian professor.  Searching around after that doesn't reveal much more.

 

I suppose the story about the Nuns killing themselves could be true, but I'd lean towards it being an isolated case rather than the norm unless there was more info.  Spain was under siege from the Moors for 800 years and while there are certainly stories of rape and enslavement, I haven't seen suicide mentioned.

 

It's certainly interesting history, but it's depressing to me as well, especially given the current political climate where we treat these groups like poor, misunderstood victims.  

 

"In the 1,000 years since the reign of the Caliph Mamoun Arabs have translated as many books into Arabic as Spain translates into Spanish in one year."

 

- The Economist

Edited January 10, 2014 by NotreDame