9/11 Jumpers -- was what they did a sin?

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Okay. Thank you for the examples.

First let me reiterate how inconceivable it is that a person who doesn’t desire death would willingly and thoughtfully choose to leap out a window. All the hot stove analogies in this thread continue to apply here.

But even if your options one or two were a serious possibility…

Your scenario two is not as ambiguous as you think. If a person’s rationale is, “I can stay here and be burned alive, or jump and die an instant death,” that very attitude precludes desiring death as an end - to “save themselves [from] the pain of burning” (your words) is a paraphrase of the rationale you described a sentence earlier.

Desiring to escape the pain of burning is the only conceivable intention for the person in your second scenario, and since death is not a means to that end (double effect), that individual is not guilty of killing himself or herself.

And again, I admit that your scenario one - using one’s own death to curse God - is indeed mortally sinful if done with full knowledge and full consent. Once again laying aside full consent, however, I will say this:

Conclusion (of this reply…)

vz, here is one thing I readily acknowledge: if a person wills his or her own death as an end in itself, that is objectively sinful. If a person wills his or her own death as a means to the end of blaspheming God, that is objectively sinful. Of course.

We have no reason that justifies even considering either of these to be the case in these circumstances.

If I ask this question:

“I watched a man walk exactly one block through my town as I was gazing out the window. During that time, did he sin by doing that?”

Now imagine that you respond, “Well, we don’t know, because we don’t know the full extent of his circumstances. He may well have sinned in walking down the street, because we don’t know what was going on in his head, or even what he intended by walking toward wherever he was headed.”

You’re not technically wrong. But that doesn’t change the fact that the reasonable answer is, “No.”

The same thing is going on here:

(1) The only reason this topic exists at all is because, objectively speaking, the action of those poor people who jumped from the windows of the World Trade Center on September 11 seemed to some to be self-euthanasia - killing oneself to escape pain. That’s the only sin they stand reasonably suspected of.

(2) Double effect shows that they are not guilty of killing themselves to escape pain, because if their intention was to escape pain by jumping out a window, double effect exonerates them from that due to the fact that death is not a means of escaping pain but is rather another effect of it - an unwilled but permitted one.

Your argument is essentially this:

“But you don’t know that that’s what they intended - to escape the pain of burning by jumping out the window. What if they happened to have another motive that was sinful?”

I’m not saying you’re wrong about the hypothetical scenarios that you’re considering, vz. I’m saying that those hypothetical scenarios do not merit consideration in light of what happened that day. Heck, even mine (“I’ll leap to escape this pain!”) strains credulity, in light of the burning pain they were suffering and which doubtless precluded the free exercise of rational decision-making.

You’re missing the forest for the trees. If we stop our argument for a second, if we think about that day, try to put ourselves in those people’s shoes, and seriously imagine what it would be like, then we can’t possibly miss the fact that no one not predisposed to self-murder for reasons unrelated to September 11 would possibly want to die that way - either to curse God, or to escape pain, or whatever. So obviously those that did jump either didn’t know what they were doing, or were driven by pain to an act which leads to a foreseeable but unwilled death.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

OK, The only things we know is that they were in the buildings, and jumped.
The rest is assumption.
Scenario 1 - evil.
The room is filling with smoke, we do not know if there is fire there or not, but the heat is likely extreme.
Our hapless victim curses God for the circumstance. Why not, they didn’t deserve this, obviously God is willing it upon them. And they decide to jump. God may deem that they die in a burning building, but I can still decide to take their own life rather then allow God into it.

Scenario 2 - ambiguous.
Same victim, same circumstance.
But instead of a curse to God…
I’m not living through this. I can stay here and be burned alive, or jump and die an instant death.
It may or may not be a sin, we do not know if they intend to die that way or simply save themselves the pain of burning. God does.

Scenario 3 - innocent.
Instead of deciding one way or another…
Pure fear and instinct drives our victim out the window.
They may not even be aware of their actions until after they get out the window.

Do you understand what I am seeing now?
Same circumstances, same individuals, different thoughts concerning their circumstance. And a different morality concerning the same action for it.

And since we really do not know anything more of them, we have no business with a blannket proclamation of innocence or guilt.
I can see all three of these scenarios as possible and likely.
But since we cannot determine final thoughts, we do not know which scenario any one would fall into.

As I said at the beginning of this thread, we cannot determine the morality of the act, all we can do is pray for God’s mercy.

Basically, you lay out three scenarios.

The problem is that there are many more possibilities.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Perhaps it is less horrifying to believe all of the victims here had a straight ticket to heaven. But we simply do not have the information to say that with any authority.

Changing the subject slightly … the victims did not know and had no way of knowing … but in all probability they DID get a straight ticket to heaven.

REASON: at least two Catholic priests gave everyone general absolution.

 

[vz71]

Basically, you lay out three scenarios.

The problem is that there are many more possibilities.

Agreed. The possibilities are endless.
So why are we trying to attribute a specific to these people?

 

[vz71]

Changing the subject slightly … the victims did not know and had no way of knowing … but in all probability they DID get a straight ticket to heaven.

REASON: at least two Catholic priests gave everyone general absolution.

Except on issue that I can see.
We are discussing their final act. Was it sinful or not.

General absolution is there for them, but it only can have an effect on their current state of sin, not upon sin they have yet to act out.

So these souls still had a final act to work out with their creator.
I should like to say they all easily made heaven, but I will refrain from speculating.

 

[vz71]

If I ask this question:

“I watched a man walk exactly one block through my town as I was gazing out the window. During that time, did he sin by doing that?”

Now imagine that you respond, “Well, we don’t know, because we don’t know the full extent of his circumstances. He may well have sinned in walking down the street, because we don’t know what was going on in his head, or even what he intended by walking toward wherever he was headed.”

You’re not technically wrong. But that doesn’t change the fact that the reasonable answer is, “No.”

The same thing is going on here

The analogy fails because the act of walking one block is not reasonably expected to end in death.
A better analogy would be watching someone walk out into traffic and get hit by a car.

Is it sinful to run out into a road and be hit by a car?
We have to answer why and what exactly they were thinking before we can say.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

No, my analogy fails only if used as a defense against an act that’s objectively sinful, or an act that includes the agent’s willing something evil as a means to an end.

It would fail in that scenario because walking down the street involves no (observable) foreseen evil effect - like death, yes.

But it’s appropriate in this instance, because the scenarios you’ve suggested as ones in which one of those people would have sinned involve evil effects - such as blasphemy (cursing God) - that no more follow naturally from jumping from a window than whatever random and extremely specific evil effect does from walking down the street.

In any case, skepticism about their intentions is unwarranted and unjustifiable. We know they somehow exited the windows and plummeted to their deaths. We know from various phone calls from inside the WTC (linked to earlier in this thread) that multiple people trapped inside faced unbearable heat.

We can presume that none of those people would have jumped from those windows if the September 11 terrorist attacks had never occurred (I don’t think you’ll deny even this…)

It follows upon overwhelming inductive evidence that none of them willed their own deaths as an end. It’s telling that none of your three scenarios even involve this - rather, they include the possibility that some may have willed their own deaths as a means to cursing God.

But in light of all the above, it’s also totally unreasonable to entertain the notion that their intention in jumping was anything other than escaping physical agony.

That’s why this thread either never should have happened, or should have ended the moment someone first invoked double effect (and I’m pretty sure I was not the first…)

 

[vz71]

No, my analogy fails only if used as a defense against an act that’s objectively sinful, or an act that includes the agent’s willing something evil as a means to an end.

So how many pages are we going to spend debating how alike jumping from a burning building and walking down a street are?
Is it really going to be your contention that these two actions are the same?
Or even similar?

It would fail in that scenario because walking down the street involves no (observable) foreseen evil effect - like death, yes.

I see a pattern here.
You HAVE to disagree. I cannot be right, no matter what.
You started off with disagreement to my statements concerning the analogy, but in the very next sentence you restate what I said. Even when you agree with me, you can’t bring yourself to say it. I thought I saw the end of this type of political manuevering as the elections came and went.
Apparently not.

In any case, skepticism about their intentions is unwarranted and unjustifiable. We know they somehow exited the windows and plummeted to their deaths. We know from various phone calls from inside the WTC (linked to earlier in this thread) that multiple people trapped inside faced unbearable heat.

Well, we do know a great deal about the circumstances of some people that were in the buildings.
But that does not in any way tell us about those that jumped.
We are left with knowing nothing except the facts at hand. No more.

We can presume that none of those people would have jumped from those windows if the September 11 terrorist attacks had never occurred (I don’t think you’ll deny even this…)

Deny what? That no one would have jumped if the attacks did not happen?
Surely you should know me better then that by now.
I will not speculate on a theoretical.
Is it possible that none would have jumped otherwise? Perhaps, but we still do not know. And we cannot proceed further without assumptions that are not warranted.

It follows upon overwhelming inductive evidence that none of them willed their own deaths as an end. It’s telling that none of your three scenarios even involve this - rather, they include the possibility that some may have willed their own deaths as a means to cursing God.

Same issue again.
Your going to disagree with me before agreeing.
I would direct you to scenario 1 and 2. Death was understood and meant as an outcome. I know, I wrote them.

But in light of all the above, it’s also totally unreasonable to entertain the notion that their intention in jumping was anything other than escaping physical agony.

Scenario 3…possibly.
But without knowing more then we do, it is a stretch even that far.

That’s why this thread either never should have happened, or should have ended the moment someone first invoked double effect (and I’m pretty sure I was not the first…)

This thread was always going to be multiple pages.
There will always be people that cannot agree. That will always state the opposition as wrong, then restate their exact position.

Actually, the threads involving the eventual fates of the victims of 911 will always be long and difficult. It is comforting to think that only the terrorists involved met judgement unprepared. It is comforting to think that all of the victims went straight to heaven, that the simply were incapable of disobedience to God during those last moments. People want comfort. People want to believe that whatever actions were taken were all perfectly acceptable to God. That there could not be any sin involved.

While it may be acceptable to think and wish for that, the reality is that we simply do not know.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

So how many pages are we going to spend debating how alike jumping from a burning building and walking down a street are?
Is it really going to be your contention that these two actions are the same?
Or even similar?

We needn’t spend any more time on it. If it’s become part of the argument, then it’s useless here. I’ll let that argument go.

I see a pattern here.
You HAVE to disagree. I cannot be right, no matter what.

No, seriously, I promise I won’t continue to defend the analogy. I know that doing so won’t help either of our positions.

And you’re not wrong about everything. I agree with you that if someone had leaped from the windows intending to die as an act of defiance and blasphemy against God, then their act would have been gravely sinful.

We don’t disagree on everything. Far from it.

I thought I saw the end of this type of political manuevering as the elections came and went.
Apparently not.

Potshots.

Deny what? That no one would have jumped if the attacks did not happen?
Surely you should know me better then that by now.
I will not speculate on a theoretical.

You aren’t willing to assume that if the September 11 terrorist attacks had not occurred, that none of those people would have jumped to their deaths?

Well, you are above all unimpeachably consistent. Here’s another thing we can agree on: from a position of such extreme skepticism, blanket statements about the morality of their act are indeed dubious.

Same issue again.
Your going to disagree with me before agreeing.
I would direct you to scenario 1 and 2. Death was understood and meant as an outcome. I know, I wrote them.

I fully acknowledge that your hypothetical victim #1 does indeed “mean death as an outcome” of his or her act, but that outcome itself is only a means to an end for him or her - not an end in itself. Act ----> effect ----> effect of the first effect. Jumping —> death -----> cursing God. Cursing God is your hypothetical victim #1’s intention. Death is the means.

But I’m afraid I must contradict you on victim #2, whose case is actually not ambiguous but fits double effect perfectly. Your description: “I’m not living through this. I can stay here and be burned alive, or jump and die an instant death.” Death in this hypothetical is foreseen but unwilled either as an end (since his or her end is escaping pain) or as a means (since death is not a means to escaping pain but an unfortunate and undesired consequence of it; rather, jumping out the window is the means to their end).

This thread was always going to be multiple pages.

You’ll assume that but not that none of those people would have jumped if the terrorist attacks had not occurred?

There will always be people that cannot agree.

Yes, but on this question? That’s atrocious…

It is comforting to think that all of the victims went straight to heaven, that the simply were incapable of disobedience to God during those last moments. People want comfort. People want to believe that whatever actions were taken were all perfectly acceptable to God.

Okay, out of respect for the victims, I didn’t want to admit what I’m about to admit, but I probably should at this point:

I know and acknowledge that we cannot know the eternal destination of the terrorists’ victims. Yes, I’m sure those who jumped out the windows were not sinning in doing so, but that doesn’t lead to the conclusion that they went to heaven. Whether they were in a state of grace before they did so determines what happened to their souls.

As I said, out of respect for them I didn’t want to admit that I have no idea whether any of them went to heaven or hell. I would like to be able to say with confidence that they all went to heaven, guaranteed, and I feel in some way that I owe them that.

But I cannot honestly make such an all-encompassing claim with any confidence. All I claim to know is that - whatever sins might have been on their souls - suicide was not one of them.

So you see, I take no such comfort from my position that their innocence in jumping from the windows is knowable. Just so you know. I claim it is their last act - not their souls - that we can judge with certainty.

 

[pnewton]

Changing the subject slightly … the victims did not know and had no way of knowing … but in all probability they DID get a straight ticket to heaven.

REASON: at least two Catholic priests gave everyone general absolution.

I know this is wiki, but I think I heard this on CAF before.

For a valid reception of general absolution, the penitent must be contrite for all his mortal sins and have the resolution to confess at the next earliest opportunity each of those mortal sins that is forgiven in general absolution.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolution

Anyone know anything to the contrary?

Found it. Canon 962

Canon 962 §1 For a member of Christ’s faithful to benefit validly from a sacramental absolution given to a number of people simultaneously, it is required not only that he or she be properly disposed, but be also at the same time personally resolved to confess in due time each of the grave sins which cannot for the moment be thus confessed.

 

[1234]

One thing I want to do is to jump out of this thread.

Immediately.

As in, right now.

Goodbye.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

I don’t really understand Catholics and I’ve been one from birth. On one thread they’re praising a fascist dictator, and here we have eight pages of debate on whether some of the 911 victims sinned by dying the wrong way.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I don’t really understand Catholics and I’ve been one from birth. On one thread they’re praising a fascist dictator, and here we have eight pages of debate on whether some of the 911 victims sinned by dying the wrong way.

I believe this forum attracts a lot of insanity because the Internet in general does, not because it’s Catholic. But that’s just my opinion…

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

I believe this forum attracts a lot of insanity because the Internet in general does, not because it’s Catholic. But that’s just my opinion…

I hope that’s all it is. Much of what’s here, attitudes, claims, obsession with pettiness, makes us look pretty bad.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I hope that’s all it is. Much of what’s here, attitudes, claims, obsession with pettiness, makes us look pretty bad.

I know. I really do think that’s what it is - an Internet thing. The Internet is always the easiest, quickest place to vent one’s scruples for those who have an ax to grind.

And I don’t think this thread is the worst of it. It’s a valid - if rightfully loaded and deeply uncomfortable - question. Some other threads not only have pages of argument over something that shouldn’t need to be argued about, but terrible premises/topics as well.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

I know. I really do think that’s what it is - an Internet thing. The Internet is always the easiest, quickest place to vent one’s scruples for those who have an ax to grind.

And I don’t think this thread is the worst of it. It’s a valid - if rightfully loaded and deeply uncomfortable - question. Some other threads not only have pages of argument over something that shouldn’t need to be argued about, but terrible premises/topics as well.

Ah… I regard this as one of the most implausible and uncharitable threads I’ve seen here. No one here who hasn’t been there has the right to question the actions of those victims.

 

[The_Word]

You know how on September 11th, over 200 people “jumped” to their deaths? Was what they did sinful?

It’s said that these people didn’t choose to die, but rather chose how to die; it was either going to happen being suffocated in there or by impact. It could be argued that they were forced out, but would it have been a sinful act to jump rather than just wait for the inevitable, even though the latter may be even worse than the former?

Of course, some adjustment should be made because in a panic situation, you might not be in your right mind.

But, theologically, was it a sinful thing? And I’m guessing most of you will say no. I don’t have any opinion either way because I wasn’t in the tower and I don’t really know how bad it was. This could have implications on end-of-life treatment and euthanasia, so it’s not just a hypothetical discussion.

Everyone on earth is a sinner with genetic sin traits in their DNA so it makes no bit of difference how, when or where you sin. All sinners will be forgiven after they die in the flesh and then they’ll be freed from their sinful flesh forever.

 

[centurionguard]

For some, that could well be the case.
But I am not comfortable making the assumption that we know the motives of every individual.
We simply do not have that information.

You may assume it if you wish, but you need to understand it is merely conjecture.

Perhaps it is less horrifying to believe all of the victims here had a straight ticket to heaven. But we simply do not have the information to say that with any authority.

…

For me I’d say you made one of the best statements here amongst numerous arguments in this thread questioning the moral intentions of the 9/11 jumper victims involved.

Fear is often said to be a vital response to physical and emotional danger.
I don’t believe anybody in this thread myself included could vouchsafe what they would do in the exact same circumstances when fear would overwhelm anyone involved.

As you stated;

Everything else is merely pure conjecture

Peace
Chris

 

[The_Word]

I don’t really understand Catholics and I’ve been one from birth. On one thread they’re praising a fascist dictator, and here we have eight pages of debate on whether some of the 911 victims sinned by dying the wrong way.

Ignorance of the truth is the problem. If people understood that all sinners are saved from their sinful flesh, then dying is no big deal. No one makes a big issue out of a stillborn baby who didn’t get to experience their heavenly life in God. What about all the fetuses that get aborted each year? Do you see them having a decision how to die?

As you can see, sinners can’t explain these things so it’s more fun to talk about.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Ah… I regard this as one of the most implausible and uncharitable threads I’ve seen here. No one here who hasn’t been there has the right to question the actions of those victims.

The thread has gotten pretty bad. It was the initial question I was talking about - and while I do find it revolting, if someone asks, what is there left to do but answer? I don’t think asking this question - as tasteless as that is - compares to campaigning against women wearing pants, for example, or claiming it’s your “right” to bring a concealed firearm to Mass, or discussing whether holding the Christian faith should be a prerequisite for American citizenship.

Topics like that make me want to vomit. This thread simply provoked me to reply that the answer is, “No, they didn’t sin in jumping” as loudly and emphatically as I could…

(Edited to remove quote of deleted post)

For me I’d say you made one of the best statements here amongst numerous arguments in this thread questioning the moral intentions of the 9/11 jumper victims involved.

Fear is often said to be a vital response to physical and emotional danger.
I don’t believe anybody in this thread myself included could vouchsafe what they would do in the exact same circumstances when fear would overwhelm anyone involved.

He denied repeatedly that we can be certain fear was a primary motivating factor. I don’t think absolute skepticism is appropriate when considering this question. It’s pretty clear that those victims’ last act was in no way sinful.