Re those on the top floors of the World Trade Center

[jujubee]

This question just hit me today as I was watching the recap of the 9/11 terrorist attack. The people on the top floors… the ones who jumped… was that a true suicide? I can’t imagine what they were facing. But I am certainly hoping that someone can explain that in the eyes of the church their choice to leap to death when facing a certain death from the flames is not the same as what we normally think of as suicide.

Your thoughts or insights…?

 

[GEddie]

This question just hit me today as I was watching the recap of the 9/11 terrorist attack. The people on the top floors… the ones who jumped… was that a true suicide? I can’t imagine what they were facing. But I am certainly hoping that someone can explain that in the eyes of the church their choice to leap to death when facing a certain death from the flames is not the same as what we normally think of as suicide.

Your thoughts or insights…?

I am not a priest or theologian, just a sinner, but here goes:

If one’s intent is not death, then one is not committing suicide. Presumably none of these people desired to die; if given a chance to save their life they would have done so. The urge to escape from fire is a natural human instinct and, had they been on levels 1, 2, or 3 (or had BASE jumping equipment), would have actually saved them. The deaths were not a result of suicide but of a situation where continued life was not physically possible.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[PatrickSebast]

Well I can’t say what anyone was thinking, but people HAVE survived falls from greater heights. It isn’t common, but it can happen, and fear can also make people delusional so it isn’t totally unbelievable that some of the jumpers were just taking a chance at a miracle.

 

[Catholic87]

I don’t know what is the worst way to die…this burning or the feeling of falling for so long…

 

[NiceMimi]

Once I took a course at a local church, and someone asked the priest if commiting suicide was still considered a sin. His response was that when someone commits suicide, they are not in the right state of mind, and thus they are not sinning.

As for the people who jumped from the World Trade Center, I cannot believe that they were in the right state of mind. The heat from the fires caused by the planes crashing into the building were high enough to cause the steel foundations within the building to melt, thus causing the buildings to come down. If they were hot enough to cause the steel foundations to melt, then the heat cause by the fire must have been so horrific that staying in the building was humanely unbearable.

 

[Zooey]

I am not a priest or theologian, just a sinner, but here goes:

If one’s intent is not death, then one is not committing suicide. Presumably none of these people desired to die; if given a chance to save their life they would have done so. The urge to escape from fire is a natural human instinct and, had they been on levels 1, 2, or 3 (or had BASE jumping equipment), would have actually saved them. The deaths were not a result of suicide but of a situation where continued life was not physically possible.

ICXC NIKA.

:sad_yes:

Well I can’t say what anyone was thinking, but people HAVE survived falls from greater heights. It isn’t common, but it can happen, and fear can also make people delusional so it isn’t totally unbelievable that some of the jumpers were just taking a chance at a miracle.

:sad_yes:

:byzsoc:Eternal rest grant unto them, and may they rest in peace.

 

[Ian_Bouystress]

The formal attribution of suicide is often assigned from a value judgement made outside the victim (or perpetrator’s) actual situation in life or life context, by others. Yet suicide cannot actually be this in God’s eyes. Human attribution is limited to one’s view of human nature and one’s knowledge of situations people find themselves in during life. Are not humans’ situations sometimes unique affairs and private matters before God? Sadly, they tend to be group-objectively defined, not individually-subjectively viewed by the people closest to the victim. I live in Asia where much more thought, sympathy, and consideration to all the possibilities are given to suicide victims, especially by family members. I think the best view to hold about suicide is that only God knows what it is in any one situation. I don’t wish to excuse it; just not judge or easily attribute it. Oh for simpler times when suicide was more clear-cut, for a time when people had fewer choices! It all comes down to understanding another person’s choices, but can we ever truly do so?

From a superficial perspective, suicide is simply the deliberate act of taking or ending one’s own life. Yet what if taking one’s life is also doing something else like potentially saving it, easing another’s burden, or saving others’ lives? Remember Jesus ‘gave’ his life for us, to save us and all humanity. One cannot seriously believe that Jesus took his own life, even though the Bible says he had full choice in the matter. How about other people, especially those who are less spiritually wise, healthy, reasonable, or emotionally powerful?

Providing human judgement in a matter is easy; withholding it in humility or grace is the much harder and more grueling choice. I suggest taking the latter, tentative approach for such matters as long as possible. Better yet- ask God and put it in His hands!

I think almost all the people in the buildings, religious and nonreligious people included, jumped at the point when they saw no other alternative. The temperatures on and around the top floors- even on the floors and window facings- were intolerable! Holding on to the building was a threat, too! The acrid smoke was the most immediate threat to life and seen by most there to be a most unforgiving incapacitator. People went to windows to escape the heat and smoke, that is, to survive. They also jumped when they could not stay at the window or else escape to another room; that is, to survive. Their hope was they might hit something that would slow their fall enough to survive, or because they chose one more minute of life, hope, and prayer rather than experience immediate suffocation. I think most true Christians would have done the same. Our view of their situation is only different because we were in a safe place looking on…

 

[Vince1022]

This question just hit me today as I was watching the recap of the 9/11 terrorist attack. The people on the top floors… the ones who jumped… was that a true suicide? I can’t imagine what they were facing. But I am certainly hoping that someone can explain that in the eyes of the church their choice to leap to death when facing a certain death from the flames is not the same as what we normally think of as suicide.

Your thoughts or insights…?

Are you serious? Or just insensitive? Of course it was not suicide.

 

[revert_jen]

Once I took a course at a local church, and someone asked the priest if commiting suicide was still considered a sin. His response was that when someone commits suicide, they are not in the right state of mind, and thus they are not sinning.

That’s not really true. (I mean what he said is not really true, not that I don’t believe he said it.) What the catechism actually says is:
"CCC #2280-2283:

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.

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.

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.

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.

That really isn’t the same as saying that by definition, anyone who takes his own life is non compos mentis. What the priest is saying is in effect that suicide can’t be a sin, it is merely a symptom.

As for the people who jumped from the World Trade Center, I cannot believe that they were in the right state of mind.

However, the line of reasoning that I have rejected as applying to all suicides under all circumstances, I do accept as applying to those particular circumstances. Grave fear of suffering (burning to death) was certainly present and was a well-founded fear. In addition I cannot conceive that there was much chance for the vast majority of the people in that situation giving full consent of the will to any action whatsoever. They were surrounded by people who were (justifiably) panicking, and were in simultaneous danger of dying by smoke inhalation, burning to death, and being crushed by the building coming down, not to mention being crushed by smaller but nonetheless deadly things, like large pieces of furniture.

Which only underlines once again, the extreme bravery, commitment, love of neighbor, and sense of duty of all of those who voluntarily went into the buildings to save others. May God bless all who did this and survived. May He bless the families of those who died. May He grant eternal rest to those who gave their lives in this noble endeavor (including those who have died since due to health issues from that day) and never let their goodness be forgotten while the USA remains a country.

–Jen

 

[revert_jen]

Are you serious? Or just insensitive? Of course it was not suicide.

pots… kettles…

Just because you feel sure of the answer to a question, doesn’t mean someone has to have something wrong with them because they ask the question.

–Jen

 

[Zooey]

I think almost all the people in the buildings, religious and nonreligious people included, jumped at the point when they saw no other alternative. The temperatures on and around the top floors- even on the floors and window facings- were intolerable! Holding on to the building was a threat, too! The acrid smoke was the most immediate threat to life and seen by most there to be a most unforgiving incapacitator. People went to windows to escape the heat and smoke, that is, to survive. They also jumped when they could not stay at the window or else escape to another room; that is, to survive. Their hope was they might hit something that would slow their fall enough to survive, or because they chose one more minute of life, hope, and prayer rather than experience immediate suffocation. I think most true Christians would have done the same. Our view of their situation is only different because we were in a safe place looking on…

Thank you for this post; I agree.:sad_yes:

PS: Welcome to CAF.

Which only underlines once again, the extreme bravery, commitment, love of neighbor, and sense of duty of all of those who voluntarily went into the buildings to save others. May God bless all who did this and survived. May He bless the families of those who died. May He grant eternal rest to those who gave their lives in this noble endeavor (including those who have died since due to health issues from that day) and never let their goodness be forgotten while the USA remains a country.

–Jen

:byzsoc: :byzsoc:

 

[dusty_david]

The response to 9/11 was Catholic Americans in action. In NYC, the police, fire department, and emergency services are mostly Catholic. They walked into the fire and climbed dozens of stories. to save people. And died in their hundreds. There are some links some to the catholic culture of the police and firemen in NYC. Will link when I can.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The heat of the fires was so intense, that they could not stay inside the building. They would be burned alive. Certain death.

Their ONLY escape was to jump and to pray for a one in a million chance that they might not be killed when they hit the ground.

Several priests gave general absolution to the people there that day.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

There were several helicopters whose crews were dismayed that there were no building occupants on the roof to be picked up and rescued.

During the 1993 bombing, there was an active effort to bring police to the roof who gained access and were able to rescue people by helicopter. However, bureaucratic infighting prevented a repeat of that approach.

The original “fire door” to the roof of the WTC had been replaced by a steel door in a steel and concrete frame, with two locks. One was a mechanical key lock with the key stored in the adjacent building. The other door was an electrically activated lock that had to be activated at the same instant as the key lock. It all had to be coordinated well in advance to bring the mechanical key to the door and then by radio to activate both at the same time.

The door was too strong to be breached by force.

As a result, there were estimated to be two hundred people who attempted to reach the roof for helicopter rescue, but who were prevented from doing so. And they were queued up in the vicinity of the roof doors in the lost hope of getting to the roof.

There are photographs available showing a large “H” painted on the roof of 1 WTC indicating that it was possible and originally intended for helicopters to land there. And it was possible as proved in 1993.

This has been discussed on the internet. You can look it up. It’s all public information.

So, we can also ask about the motivation of the nameless bureaucrats who sealed off the roof rescue access. What was their motivation and how will they be judged?

And if you or I ever are in a bureaucratic position to make such a decision, how will we act? And how will we be judged?

 

[Newbie2]

Are you serious? Or just insensitive? Of course it was not suicide.

It’s a legitimate question.

Some undoubtedly jumped in a panicked escape. Some had more time to realize what was happening and made a conscious decision to die by another method than smoke inhalation or burning.

Either was, it was not suicide in what we normally think of it…someone has plenty of time and perhaps plenty of other options yet decides to take their own life.

There were several helicopters whose crews were dismayed that there were no building occupants on the roof to be picked up and rescued.

During the 1993 bombing, there was an active effort to bring police to the roof who gained access and were able to rescue people by helicopter. However, bureaucratic infighting prevented a repeat of that approach.

The original “fire door” to the roof of the WTC had been replaced by a steel door in a steel and concrete frame, with two locks. One was a mechanical key lock with the key stored in the adjacent building. The other door was an electrically activated lock that had to be activated at the same instant as the key lock. It all had to be coordinated well in advance to bring the mechanical key to the door and then by radio to activate both at the same time.

The door was too strong to be breached by force.

As a result, there were estimated to be two hundred people who attempted to reach the roof for helicopter rescue, but who were prevented from doing so. And they were queued up in the vicinity of the roof doors in the lost hope of getting to the roof.

There are photographs available showing a large “H” painted on the roof of 1 WTC indicating that it was possible and originally intended for helicopters to land there. And it was possible as proved in 1993.

This has been discussed on the internet. You can look it up. It’s all public information.

So, we can also ask about the motivation of the nameless bureaucrats who sealed off the roof rescue access. What was their motivation and how will they be judged?

And if you or I ever are in a bureaucratic position to make such a decision, how will we act? And how will we be judged?

There’s a lot of assumptions…that a helicopter could or would be able to make a rescue (would they actually try landing on an unstable building? What were the winds like? Debris in the air?

But assuming they could, on the other hand, they could not have had unlimited access to the building’s roof. Is there a better way of keeping people off the roof? Maybe, maybe not.

Under “normal” emergencies, would there have been an opportunity to get the roof access open?

Could anyone have forseen that someone would destroy the buildings in such a manner?

I think their motivation was to keep people safe, as the top of the buildings were generally considered not a safe place to be. As well, liability. People throwing things off the building, true suicide jumpers, etc…the question would be asked, what did they do to prevent such things from happening?

Damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

 

[puzzleannie]

This question just hit me today as I was watching the recap of the 9/11 terrorist attack. The people on the top floors… the ones who jumped… was that a true suicide? I can’t imagine what they were facing. But I am certainly hoping that someone can explain that in the eyes of the church their choice to leap to death when facing a certain death from the flames is not the same as what we normally think of as suicide.

Your thoughts or insights…?

no of course not their intent was escape in a situation with no time to think or make the reasoned (however flawed) choice for suicide.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

s

There’s a lot of assumptions…that a helicopter could or would be able to make a rescue (would they actually try landing on an unstable building? What were the winds like? Debris in the air?

But assuming they could, on the other hand, they could not have had unlimited access to the building’s roof. Is there a better way of keeping people off the roof? Maybe, maybe not.

Under “normal” emergencies, would there have been an opportunity to get the roof access open?

Could anyone have forseen that someone would destroy the buildings in such a manner?

I think their motivation was to keep people safe, as the top of the buildings were generally considered not a safe place to be. As well, liability. People throwing things off the building, true suicide jumpers, etc…the question would be asked, what did they do to prevent such things from happening?

Damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

The police actually DID land on the WTC roof in 1993. And they were there and prepared to land in 2001.

In NYC, the police department has helicopters and uses them routinely for rescue work. For some undetermined reason, the NYC fire department refuses to use helicopters. A helicopter had been budgeted by the NYC fire commissioner, but was apparently cancelled.

In other cities, helicopters are routinely used for roof top rescues. There have been cases where roof top rescues have been put together on an ad hoc basis; any helicopter in the area responded and they organized themselves and conducted the rescues spontaneously. Happens routinely. Except in NYC.

Why?

You can deny access to the roof without using a bank vault door with double locks. And still make it available in case of emergency.

Just one example: the top floor of the WTC was manned 24/7 because the offices there were for the tech support of the tenants that transmitted via the roof antennas. They could have been given a key to the roof.

Rescue of people from high rise buildings is not a sudden new topic. Been discussed for decades. Other cities take action. Except NYC.

Google: " fire rescue high rise helicopter "

 

[jujubee]

Are you serious? Or just insensitive? Of course it was not suicide.

(sigh) You can’t tell from my original post that I am genuinely wondering this? It is the moral theology forum and I am asking for insight on Catholic Church teaching on a moral question.

I had been watching this on the news yesterday and was putting myself in their position, wondering what I would have done myself. If I am ever facing those last minutes of my life the thing I want to do most is make a choice that is in line with the Church that I love, no matter what.

My gut feeling is that even though jumping has the consequence of dying, that the intent of the action is not to die but to escape another harm. To me the rationale is similar to the question of whether a woman with ovarian cancer can have her ovaries removed and not be guilty of going against church teaching regarding birth control and the like. The intention is to remove the illness with an unintended consequence of infertility. Does that make sense? Am I looking at that correctly?

 

[jujubee]

Thanks everyone. Several more replies came while I was typing my own so I really do appreciate your answers. Just want you to know I’ve read them.

 

[revert_jen]

My gut feeling is that even though jumping has the consequence of dying, that the intent of the action is not to die but to escape another harm. To me the rationale is similar to the question of whether a woman with ovarian cancer can have her ovaries removed and not be guilty of going against church teaching regarding birth control and the like. The intention is to remove the illness with an unintended consequence of infertility. Does that make sense? Am I looking at that correctly?

As far as it goes, and as far as I can tell, yes. But in addition to that, there was the inability to make a reasoned and entirely willed choice due to the chaos they were in at the time. This means that even if some people did just intend to die (rather than e.g. be maimed for life or something), it couldn’t be a mortal sin.

–Jen