Is Suicide acceptable to avoid Rape?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Muzhik
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes. Suicide is intrinsically evil (because humans do not have the right to kill themselves). Good intentions cannot change that.

Once again, he allowed himself to be killed, which is different from killing himself. He said, “If you are going to kill, kill me rather than them.” Suicide, on the other hand, says, “I should die now.”
It is the same thing, He just didn’t “pull the trigger” so to speak. He chose to die for the good of others, He could have prevented His death, as He did several times before Good Friday. Many of the Saints did the same, it’s called Martyrdom. They didn’t have to die, they could have fled (not all, but some) but they *chose *death.

Not everything is as black and white as you’re painting it.
 
Once again, he allowed himself to be killed, which is different from killing himself. He said, “If you are going to kill, kill me rather than them.” Suicide, on the other hand, says, “I should die now.”
I’m pretty sure POWs who cease being useful- i.e. have divulged all the information they know- aren’t kept around any more. I think it’s fair to say that a person in a position where they’re being tortured for information assumes that his life is forfeit was soon as that information is delivered.

Thus, a person in such a horrible situation, who chooses to die in place of the people who would die once the information is given, is acting as St. Kolbe did.

I also find it hard to believe that someone is such a situation has full use of their faculties, and would therefore not be in any condition to meet the three requirements necessary for mortal sin.
 
It is the same thing, He just didn’t “pull the trigger” so to speak.
It is emphatically not the same thing. Killing yourself is active, assertive, making a statement about the way things should be. Letting someone else kill you is passive, accepting, putting the ball in their court. Maybe they’ll choose to do the right thing. Even if they don’t, they might have.
He chose to die for the good of others, He could have prevented His death, as He did several times before Good Friday.
First, he’s God, so he’s the only one qualified to decide when people die. Second, there is a difference between throwing yourself off a roof and being thrown off the roof, even if you could have avoided being thrown off the roof by doing something evil, because if something is evil, you should never do it, by definition. The person throwing you off the roof shouldn’t do it either, but you can’t make the choice for them.
Many of the Saints did the same, it’s called Martyrdom.
Martyrdom is a situation in which you’re put in a squeeze: let them kill you, or do something evil. You cannot choose to do evil, ever, for any reason. You can allow evil to be perpetrated, though you should generally prevent it if you can. It’s a simple distinction but vitally important.
*They didn’t have to die, they could have fled (not all, but some) but they *chose **death.
They chose to allow someone else to do something evil to them over doing something evil themselves. If you want, you can think of it like economics, only backwards: a bird in the hand is worse than two birds in the bush, so to speak.
Not everything is as black and white as you’re painting it.
But some things are. The Catechism is usually pretty clear about them.
I’m pretty sure POWs who cease being useful- i.e. have divulged all the information they know- aren’t kept around any more. I think it’s fair to say that a person in a position where they’re being tortured for information assumes that his life is forfeit was soon as that information is delivered.

Thus, a person in such a horrible situation, who chooses to die in place of the people who would die once the information is given, is acting as St. Kolbe did.
No doubt, their motives are admirable. This doesn’t change the situation, though, nor does it make it analogous to St. Kolbe. Performing actions which may happen to result in your death is different than willing yourself to be dead. St. Kolbe didn’t will himself to be dead, but that other man to live. The soldier who kills himself wills himself to be dead so that others won’t die.
I also find it hard to believe that someone is such a situation has full use of their faculties, and would therefore not be in any condition to meet the three requirements necessary for mortal sin.
I would tend to agree. This doesn’t change the situation, though. Even venial sin is absolutely forbidden. You cannot enter in to heaven if you would not have done differently if given the chance to go back and live through it again with a clear head.
 
Yes. Suicide is intrinsically evil (because humans do not have the right to kill themselves). Good intentions cannot change that.

Once again, he allowed himself to be killed, which is different from killing himself. He said, “If you are going to kill, kill me rather than them.” Suicide, on the other hand, says, “I should die now.”
Your logic is flawed.

First off St. Maximilian Kolbe never said “if you are going…” when he gave up his life for another.

Secondly in the situation which St. Maximilian Kolbe was in, there was no “if you are going to kill” as the Nazi’s were going to kill someone. He was not chosen so there was no chance he was going to die.

Furthermore St. Kolbe willed that he should die so that the other could live.
 
I wouldn’t mind being raped if the aggressor is an attractive female. That way, I look forward to the life ahead of me instead of no life (intrinsically evil suicide)
 
I wouldn’t mind being raped if the aggressor is an attractive female.
This quote is infinitely offensive to those of us who have been raped. In fact, I speak with a fair amount of confidence that it is repugnant to everyone with an ounce of compassion, rape victim or not.

Please, please consider the impact of your words before making flippant comments like this.
 
Even if they don’t, they might have.
Yeah, sure. And maybe someone with a knife to my throat won’t slit, therefore the sniper shouldn’t shoot.
First, he’s God, so he’s the only one qualified to decide when people die. Second, there is a difference between throwing yourself off a roof and being thrown off the roof, even if you could have avoided being thrown off the roof by doing something evil, because if something is evil, you should never do it, by definition. The person throwing you off the roof shouldn’t do it either, but you can’t make the choice for them.
Jesus came, among other reasons, to set an example, an example that we’re to imitate. The Church recognizes a woman who through herself off a roof to preserve her virginity as a saint. What does that tell you? Maybe that there are exceptions? A woman who chooses her virtue over her life has been looked upon very well by the Church. Choosing death is choosing death, the result is the same; the only difference that matters here is the intention.
Martyrdom is a situation in which you’re put in a squeeze: let them kill you, or do something evil. You cannot choose to do evil, ever, for any reason. You can allow evil to be perpetrated, though you should generally prevent it if you can. It’s a simple distinction but vitally important.
Yet many Saints preferred their own murder. A woman does not sin if she’s raped. What would be the better thing to do, permit the rape (sin of the rapist) or permit the rapist to kill her for refusing to submit (sin of the murderer)? The Virgin Martyrs chose death, and the Church highly regards them.
But some things are. The Catechism is usually pretty clear about them.
Which Catechism would you be referring to? If it’s the CCC, I hate to be the bringer of bad news, but it keeps a lot of things in the grey area.
No doubt, their motives are admirable. This doesn’t change the situation, though, nor does it make it analogous to St. Kolbe. Performing actions which may happen to result in your death is different than willing yourself to be dead. St. Kolbe didn’t will himself to be dead, but that other man to live. The soldier who kills himself wills himself to be dead so that others won’t die.
St. Kolbe may not have willed his death, but he knew that trading places with the prisoner would result in his death. He knew he was walking into death, and it did not hinder him one bit. The soldiers (God bless them) simply “die for the good of the nation” as the Bible refers to the Sacrifice of Christ. He doesn’t want to die, he’s not despairing, he’s sacrificing himself for others.
Taking a bullet for another, you would consider this a sin? For one to get in line of the bullet, or knife, or whatever is used, to save another…sinful?
I would tend to agree. This doesn’t change the situation, though. Even venial sin is absolutely forbidden. You cannot enter in to heaven if you would not have done differently if given the chance to go back and live through it again with a clear head.
And if one wouldn’t change a thing, if they knew what they were doing. I can’t understand why giving one’s life for God or neighbor is so appalling to you.
 
Greetings! I recall reading (years ago) an opinion given back in the middle ages, during the Muslim invasions of Europe. There were numerous examples of the Muslim soldiers gang-raping the women when conquering a city, frequently raping the women to death. The ones who were left alive could be taken back as booty, to be sold into a harem, never to see a Christian face again. The question arose that, in the face of such defilement (there’s a reason rape used to be called “a fate worse than death”), what were the acceptable options for Christian women. It was decided that in cases where (for example) the woman has been chased to the top of a tower and her only visible options are to suffer defilement or to throw herself off the tower to protect her virtue, that this act of suicide was morally acceptable (not preferable, but acceptable) and would not be considered a sin of despair as an ordinary act of suicide would be. It would fall into the same class as several of the early Church saints with the title, “Virgin and Martyr” – women who fought against their attackers to the point of death.

My question is if this view is acceptable: to choose to kill yourself rather than suffer defilement?

<><
It would not be a mortal sin because it would not be a free act, but it would not be a virtuous act because it is an evil means to a good end (killing yourself to aviod rape). The woman would not be responsible for the evil commited against her if she were raped and so would maintain her purity.
 
Introduction
Suicide is always wrong when contravening the will of God, however, we cannot always assertain the guilt of those committing evil actions, especially as this is what seems utterly insane in Maslo’s Hierarchical pyramid, and seems against most instinct, with few exceptions. I personally call it a sort of equalization, where quality of life takes the place in importance of actual existence, or when something other than physical life is more vital, and viewed more as self.

In fact, the rates of such are directly linked to societal decadance-

“France presents a painful example parallel to the systematic de-Christianization; the number of suicides for each 100,000 of population increased from 8.32 in 1852 to 29 in 1900. The reason is obvious. Religion alone, and especially the Catholic religion, instructs us with regard to the true destiny of life and the importance of death; it alone furnishes a solution of the enigma of suffering, inasmuch as it shows man living in a land of exile and suffering as a means of acquiring the glory and happiness of a future life. By its doctrines of the efficacy of repentance and the practice of confession it relieves the moral suffering of man ; it forbids and prevents to a large extent the disorders of life; in a word it is of a nature to prevent the causes which are calculated to impel a man to the extreme act.”
catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=11143

Suicide, like any grave matter, is not always leading to hell, but often is deadly to the person. Many factors can take away, even entirely guilt, but this is not for the suicidal to judge, but for God. Suicide must always be viewed as dangerous, and likely mortal. We must not make excuses for the yet to die, but warn them of the certainty of rejecting God, that said, I do not revoke my previous posting, nor leave this here.

As to whether or not it is acceptable, when it is, the divine will is clearly shown, as with Christ, and with the saints who killed their own self, this is where they are shown, but equally, we must know that the Arian Constantine is oft called a saint, and may be one, and so we cannot always say that the acction is correct, even when we believe it right, the protection of virtue is correct, but the suicide itself may be sinful, even a state cannot call a person to kill themself, and the matters of state are nothing as compares to the matters of God.

Augustine’s answer

In city of God, Augustine answers negatively to this posed objection to sinful act:

"Chapter 18.— Of the Violence Which May Be Done to the Body by Another’s Lust, While the Mind Remains Inviolate.

But is there a fear that even another’s lust may pollute the violated? It will not pollute, if it be another’s: if it pollute, it is not another’s, but is shared also by the polluted. But since purity is a virtue of the soul, and has for its companion virtue, the fortitude which will rather endure all ills than consent to evil; and since no one, however magnanimous and pure, has always the disposal of his own body, but can control only the consent and refusal of his will, what sane man can suppose that, if his body be seized and forcibly made use of to satisfy the lust of another, he thereby loses his purity? For if purity can be thus destroyed, then assuredly purity is no virtue of the soul; nor can it be numbered among those good things by which the life is made good, but among the good things of the body, in the same category as strength, beauty, sound and unbroken health, and, in short, all such good things as may be diminished without at all diminishing the goodness and rectitude of our life. But if purity be nothing better than these, why should the body be perilled that it may be preserved? If, on the other hand, it belongs to the soul, then not even when the body is violated is it lost. Nay more, the virtue of holy continence, when it resists the uncleanness of carnal lust, sanctifies even the body, and therefore when this continence remains unsubdued, even the sanctity of the body is preserved, because the will to use it holily remains, and, so far as lies in the body itself, the power also.

For the sanctity of the body does not consist in the integrity of its members, nor in their exemption from all touch; for they are exposed to various accidents which do violence to and wound them, and the surgeons who administer relief often perform operations that sicken the spectator. A midwife, suppose, has (whether maliciously or accidentally, or through unskillfulness) destroyed the virginity of some girl, while endeavoring to ascertain it: I suppose no one is so foolish as to believe that, by this destruction of the integrity of one organ, the virgin has lost anything even of her bodily sanctity. And thus, so long as the soul keeps this firmness of purpose which sanctifies even the body, the violence done by another’s lust makes no impression on this bodily sanctity, which is preserved intact by one’s own persistent continence. Suppose a virgin violates the oath she has sworn to God, and goes to meet her seducer with the intention of yielding to him, shall we say that as she goes she is possessed even of bodily sanctity, when already she has lost and destroyed that sanctity of soul which sanctifies the body? Far be it from us to so misapply words. Let us rather draw this conclusion, that while the sanctity of the soul remains even when the body is violated, the sanctity of the body is not lost; and that, in like manner, the sanctity of the body is lost when the sanctity of the soul is violated, though the body itself remains intact. And therefore a woman who has been violated by the sin of another, and without any consent of her own, has no cause to put herself to death; much less has she cause to commit suicide in order to avoid such violation, for in that case she commits certain homicide to prevent a crime which is uncertain as yet, and not her own."
newadvent.org/fathers/120101.htm

Suicide by saint
And the suicide of saints is thus rendered as exception:

"The reason we have advanced to prove the malice of a suicide, namely, God’s right and dominion, likewise justifies the modification of the general principle: God being the master of our life He may with His own consent remove from suicide whatever constitutes its disorder. Thus do some authorities justify the conduct of certain saints, who, impelled by the desire of martyrdom and especially to protect their chastity did not wait for their executioners to put them to death, but sought it in one manner or other themselves; nevertheless, the Divine will should be certain and clearly manifested in each particular case.

The question is asked: Can one who is condemned to death kill himself if ordered to do so by the judge? Some authors answer this question in the affirmative, basing their argument on the right which society possesses to punish certain malefactors with death and to commission any executioner, hence also the malefactor himself, to carry out the sentence. We share the most widely accepted opinion, that this practice, prevalent in certain countries of the East, is not lawful. Vindictive justice – and for that matter all justice – requires a distinction between the subject of a right and that of a duty, hence in the present case between the one who punishes and the one who is punished. Finally, the same principle which forbids anyone to personally compass his own death also forbids him to advise, direct, or command, with the direct intention of suicide, that another should slay him. "

Not loss of chasteness

And, as fornicators are not married, nor become so by their action, nor adulterers by theirs, rather- it is their death, neither does this action cause the victim to become unpure, it only says that violence is done against their person, and hell is reserved for the offender in such.

Conclusion

With some exceptions, it is unacceptable to kill one’s person to avoid hardship. The exceptions would likely fall under the same area as self defense, but are not for us to discern apart from facts, or private revelation at the time.
 
"A. Positive and Direct Suicide
Positive and direct suicide perpetrated without God’s consent always constitutes a grave injustice towards Him. To destroy a thing is to dispose of it as an absolute master and to act as one having full and independent dominion over it; but man does not possess this full and independent dominion over his life, since to be an owner one must be superior to his property. God has reserved to himself direct dominion over life; He is the owner of its substance and He has given man only the serviceable dominion, the right of use, with the charge of protecting and preserving the substance, that is, life itself. Consequently suicide is an attempt against the dominion and right of ownership of the Creator. To this injustice is added a serious offence against the charity which man owes to himself, since by his act he deprives himself of the greatest good in his possession and the possibility of attaining his final end. Moreover, the sin may be aggravated by circumstances, such as failure in conjugal, paternal, or filial piety, failure in justice or charity, if by taking his life one eludes existing obligations of justice or acts of charity, which he could and should perform. That suicide is unlawful is the teaching of Holy Scripture and of the Church, which condemns the act as a most atrocious crime and, in hatred of the sin and to arouse the horror of its children, denies the suicide Christian burial. Moreover, suicide is directly opposed to the most powerful and invincible tendency of every creature and especially of man, the preservation of life. Finally, for a sane man deliberately to take his own life, he must, as a general rule, first have annihilated in himself all that he possessed of spiritual life, since suicide is in absolute contradiction to everything that the Christian religion teaches us as to the end and object of life and, except in cases of insanity, is usually the natural termination of a life of disorder, weakness, and cowardice.


Suicide is the act of one who causes his own death, either by positively destroying his own life, as by inflicting on himself a mortal wound or injury, or by omitting to do what is necessary to escape death, as by refusing to leave a burning house. From a moral standpoint we must treat therefore not only the prohibition of positive suicide, but also the obligation incumbent on man to preserve his life.

Suicide is direct when a man has the intention of causing his own death, whether as an end to be attained, or as a means to another end, as when a man kills himself to escape condemnation, disgrace, ruin etc. It is indirect , and not usually called by this name when a man does not desire it, either as an end or as a means, but when he nevertheless commits an act which in effect involves death, as when he devotes himself to the care of the plague-stricken knowing that he will succumb under the task.

II. MORALITY
The teaching of the Catholic Church concerning the morality of suicide may be summarized as follows:

A. Positive and Direct Suicide
Positive and direct suicide perpetrated without God’s consent always constitutes a grave injustice towards Him. To destroy a thing is to dispose of it as an absolute master and to act as one having full and independent dominion over it; but man does not possess this full and independent dominion over his life, since to be an owner one must be superior to his property. God has reserved to himself direct dominion over life; He is the owner of its substance and He has given man only the serviceable dominion, the right of use, with the charge of protecting and preserving the substance, that is, life itself. Consequently suicide is an attempt against the dominion and right of ownership of the Creator. To this injustice is added a serious offence against the charity which man owes to himself, since by his act he deprives himself of the greatest good in his possession and the possibility of attaining his final end. Moreover, the sin may be aggravated by circumstances, such as failure in conjugal, paternal, or filial piety, failure in justice or charity, if by taking his life one eludes existing obligations of justice or acts of charity, which he could and should perform. That suicide is unlawful is the teaching of Holy Scripture and of the Church, which condemns the act as a most atrocious crime and, in hatred of the sin and to arouse the horror of its children, denies the suicide Christian burial. Moreover, suicide is directly opposed to the most powerful and invincible tendency of every creature and especially of man, the preservation of life. Finally, for a sane man deliberately to take his own life, he must, as a general rule, first have annihilated in himself all that he possessed of spiritual life, since suicide is in absolute contradiction to everything that the Christian religion teaches us as to the end and object of life and, except in cases of insanity, is usually the natural termination of a life of disorder, weakness, and cowardice.

The reason we have advanced to prove the malice of a suicide, namely, God’s right and dominion, likewise justifies the modification of the general principle: God being the master of our life He may with His own consent remove from suicide whatever constitutes its disorder. Thus do some authorities justify the conduct of certain saints, who, impelled by the desire of martyrdom and especially to protect their chastity did not wait for their executioners to put them to death , but sought it in one manner or other themselves; nevertheless, the Divine will should be certain and clearly manifested in each particular case.

The question is asked: Can one who is condemned to death kill himself if ordered to do so by the judge? Some authors answer this question in the affirmative, basing their argument on the right which society possesses to punish certain malefactors with death and to commission any executioner, hence also the malefactor himself, to carry out the sentence. We share the most widely accepted opinion, that this practice, prevalent in certain countries of the East, is not lawful. Vindictive justice – and for that matter all justice – requires a distinction between the subject of a right and that of a duty, hence in the present case between the one who punishes and the one who is punished. Finally, the same principle which forbids anyone to personally compass his own death also forbids him to advise, direct, or command, with the direct intention of suicide, that another should slay him.

B. Positive and Indirect Suicide
Positive but indirect suicide committed without Divine consent is also unlawful unless, everything considered, there is sufficient reason for doing what will cause death to follow. Thus, it is not a sin, but an act of exalted virtue, to go into savage lands to preach the Gospel, or to the bedside of the plague stricken, to minister to them, although they who do so have before them the prospect of inevitable and speedy death; nor is it a sin for workmen in the discharge of duties to climb on roofs and buildings, thus exposing themselves to danger of death, etc. All this is lawful precisely because the act itself is good and upright, for in theory the persons in question have not in view either as end or means the evil result, that is, death, that will follow, and, moreover, if there be an evil result it is largely compensated for by the good and useful result which they seek. On the other hand there is sin in exposing oneself to danger of death to display courage, to win a wager, etc., because in all these cases the end does not in any way compensate for the danger of death that is run. To judge whether or not there is sufficient reason for an act which will apparently be followed by death, all the circumstances must be weighed, namely, the importance of the good result, the greater or less certainty of its being attained, the greater or less danger of death, etc., all questions which may in a specific case be very difficult to solve.



In fact to neglect the ordinary means for preserving life is equivalent to killing one’s self, but the same is not true with regard to extraordinary means. Thus theologians teach that one is not bound in order to preserve life to employ remedies which, considering one’s condition, are regarded as extraordinary and involving extraordinary expenditure; one is not obliged to undergo a very painful surgical operation, nor a considerable amputation, nor to go into exile in order to seek a more beneficial climate, etc. To use a comparison, the lessee of a house is bound to take care of it as becomes a good father of a family, to make use of the ordinary means for the preservation of the property, for instance, to extinguish a fire which he may easily extinguish, etc., but he is not bound to employ means considered extraordinary, such as to procure the latest novelties invented by science to prevent or extinguish fire.


This suicide rate obviously includes suicides attributable to mental illness, but we cannot accept the opinion of a large number of physicians, moralists, and jurists who, led into error by a false philosophy, lay it down as a general rule that suicide is always due to insanity, so great is the horror which this act inspires in every man of sane mind. The Church rejects this theory and, while admitting exceptions, considers that those unfortunates who, impelled by despair or anger, attempt their life often act through malice or culpable cowardice. In fact, despair and anger are not as a general thing movements of the soul which it is impossible to resist, especially if one does not neglect the helps offered by religion, confidence in God, belief in the immortality of the soul and in a future life of rewards and punishments. "
catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=11143
 
I’m glad someone finally quoted Augustine’s decisive response to this question.
 
Thank you, yes, It seemed right.

P.s. the quote without a reference is from the Catholic Encyclopedia, with other ones,

I’ve added you to my “Buddy list”, whatever it is, it is good to see such questions, and the negative answer, but better to see sound doctrine.
 
Thank you:

“The reason we have advanced to prove the malice of a suicide, namely, God’s right and dominion, likewise justifies the modification of the general principle: God being the master of our life He may with His own consent remove from suicide whatever constitutes its disorder. Thus do some authorities justify the conduct of certain saints, who, impelled by the desire of martyrdom and especially to protect their chastity did not wait for their executioners to put them to death, but sought it in one manner or other themselves; nevertheless, the Divine will should be certain and clearly manifested in each particular case.”

In other words, there are exceptions. I think this has been the main point of most here.
 
In such a case, no it is not a sin. One could argue that SS M. Kolbe, Agatha, Lucy, Dorothy, etc…even Jesus all committed suicide. They chose a path that they knew would lead to their death. There is a Saint (I cannot recall her name) that did, in fact, throw herself off the roof rather than leave her home with soldiers that she knew would defile her. This woman is a Saint, and she’s applauded for choosing her virtue over her life. One could argue to fight back, but many women are not strong enough and are aware of this setback.
http://saints.sqpn.com/saintp75.htm
Saint Pelagia of Antioch?
 
Validity of her action

The saint is misrepresented, along with others by some postings, if I am correct.

With Imprimatur on books (Have them -Bulter’s lives of siants)

Online quotation on EWTN

"ST. PELAGIA, V. M.—296-311
Feast: June 9
She was a tender virgin at Antioch, only fifteen years of age when she was apprehended by the persecutors in 311. Being alone in the house, and understanding that their errand was to carry her before the judge, where her chastity might be in danger, she desired leave of the soldiers to go up stairs and dress herself. But fearing to be an innocent occasion to others’ sin, threw herself from the top of the house, and died on the spot by her fall: in which action, says St. Chrysostom, she had Jesus in her breast inspiring and exhorting her. She probably hoped to escape by that means; and might lawfully expose her life to some danger for the preservation of her chastity; but nothing will ever make it lawful for any one directly to procure his own death.

Whoever deliberately lays violent hands upon himself is guilty of a heinous injury against God, the Lord of his life, against the commonwealth, which he robs of a member, and of that comfort and assistance which he owes to it; also against his friends, children, and lastly against himself, both by destroying his corporeal life, and by the spiritual and eternal death of his soul; this crime being usually connected with final impenitence, and eternal enmity with God, and everlasting damnation. Nor can a name be found sufficiently to express the baseness of soul, and utmost excess of pusillanimity, impatience, and cowardice, which suicide implies. Strange that any nation should, by false prejudices, be able so far to extinguish the most evident principles of reason and the voice of nature, as to deem that an action of courage which springs from a total want of that heroic virtue of the soul. The same is to be said of the detestable practice of duels. True fortitude incites and enables a man to bear all manner of affronts, and to undergo all humiliations, dangers, hardships, and torments, for the sake of virtue and duty. What is more contrary to this heroic disposition, what can be imagined more dastardly, than not to be able to put up a petty affront and rather to offend against all laws divine and human, than to brook an injury or bear a misfortune with patience and constancy, than to observe the holy precept of Christ, who declares this to be his favorite commandment, the distinguishing mark of his followers, and the very soul of the divine law!"

ewtn.com/library/mary/pelagia.htm
 
In such cases, it would not longer be a mortal sin, that is for sure, as the emotions/adrenaline and the thoughts whizzing around at that point in time, goes beyond the logical reasoning barrier and the discerning process of right and wrong. Prior knowledge also becomes fuzzy.

Suicide I believe is classed as a sin in any case, because the act of suicide is sinful, and as such it remains that way because of the very nature of it. However it is not a mortal sin anymore, because of the circumstance. It also largely depends on the specific person. Some people have the iron will to live through such events, whilst some don’t. These all have to be taken into account and the factors and the variety of personalities is innumerable.
 
This quote is infinitely offensive to those of us who have been raped. In fact, I speak with a fair amount of confidence that it is repugnant to everyone with an ounce of compassion, rape victim or not.

Please, please consider the impact of your words before making flippant comments like this.
You are speaking as if I have never been raped.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top