The 1917 Code of Canon Law makes it clear that ѕυιcιdєs are not to have a funeral Mass, although in the commentaries it does allow for nuanced  consideration if a person is mentally ill or not a in full mental capacity for multiple reasons on a case by case basis. I am posting this to see if the exceptions are so, and if anyone has particular knowledge regarding this.

If a person was "diagnosed" with a mental illness and placed on a myriad or even just a few anti psychotics or SSRI's ( whose proclivities to suicidal and homicidal ideation are well known) and then commits ѕυιcιdє, would not a private Mass be in order, to avoid scandal but also to give the mentally afflicted
person the benefit of the doubt re: intent?
 Could private Masses be offered for the soul?

I'm not talking Novus Ordo 1983 Code of Canon Law which would give Judas Iscariot a "funeral mass of the Angels" if it were possible..

Is it necessary that a ѕυιcιdє be determined to be of sound ( at least in clarity) and deliberate mind  to refuse a funeral Mass?

 Also Hypothetically would a Hillary Clinton "Arkencided" victim be denied a funeral Mass because the coroner ruled it as a ѕυιcιdє?

What is the role of the Church in distinguishing intent, motive and even foul play when denying the final graces of a funeral Mass to a "ѕυιcιdє"?

The 1917 Code of Canon law has not changed and should be respected and implemented, but the world certainly HAS changed.

Thoughts , please.

Anecdotally, pre-VII the common practice was for there to be a private funeral and burial (immediate family only). The main concern was for the Church to avoid giving scandal by giving an appearance of condoning ѕυιcιdє. It sounds like you may have already looked at commentaries on it, if not: https://archive.org/details/1917CodeOfCanonLawCommentary/page/n2547/mode/1up?q=ѕυιcιdє

Yes, private masses can be said for them.

So, as per usual, some distinctions are likely in order.  I disagree with the one commentator who inserted "[public]" in one spot because he decided it's clearly the intent of the lawgiver.  That's not generally an accurate approach to Canon Law.  Those who write the law are very deliberate about every word or phrase and its placement, and the other source IMO makes the correct interpretation.  Interpretation is usually with regard to circuмstances that come up that fall into a gray area not explicitly detatiled in the law, but not by inserting words into the law that are not actually there  So, where that one source inserted the "[public]" is in front of the "Exsequalis", which refers to a Mass of Christian Burial proper, but the other source said that while some Rites may be held, not the actual Requiem Mass (thereby interpreting the law without that insertion).

Here's an important distinction:

1) Formal Funeral Mass
2) Ordinary Requiem Mass (not the formal as per above, often said by priests on Ferial days)
3) Having a Mass said for the intention of the repose of the individual's soul

I would read the law as simply indicating no on #1, the Formal Funeral Mass.  That's where the departed individual is repeatedly named and there are specific Rites that lead to formal Christian Burial.  Requiem Mass is somewhat more generic, and often one just commemorates the name of the departed in the Canon.  Then there's any Mass with a simple Commemoration of the name.

Second set of distinctions is between ...

A) Private Mass (said by a priest without faithful in attendance) -- rare these days due to priest shortages
B) Public Mass but with Private Intention

I think that even #2 would be licit if the so-called "Private Mass" is allowed, meaning that even if the Mass per se is public, if the intention is kept private, that would be licit, IMO.

I personally think that if there's some reason to think there may have been extenuating circuмstances, #3, a Mass in which at least the intention is kept Private, would be permissible.  Or with a Private Intention you could simply offer it to God conditionally where 1) you may apply the thinking of Padre Pio to request (retroactively) the salvation of the individual and/or 2) if the individual was saved, some relief from their Purgatory, or 3) for some other intention, before God, if neither of those two apply.  So it's like a set of "conditional" intentions, not unlike you would conditonally confer some Sacraments.

Even with that last one you have to be careful since if there's no positive reason but just negative (wishful thinking) hope that the person may have been saved ... you don't want to create in your own mind any sense that ѕυιcιdє is not objectively grave sin that generally leaves little hope for salvation, and nearly always ends up with the loss of a soul.

#2 I think is borderline, since in a sense it's just a certain type of Mass with the intention directed toward ... the benefit of that individual.  But, if there's any sense either with the one requesting it or the priest that it's closer to the Category of #1, I think it should be avoided.

In general, IMO, the best approach by far would be to request a Mass for your own private intentions, and then make the private intentions as outlined above.

That I believe is most in keeping with the mind of the Church, i.e. making it TRULY private.

There's also a third distinction here but I saved it for the end because it would be confusing the other distinction with the same terms, Public vs. Private.  So, in Liturgical theology, Public refers to any prayer that's an officially sanctioned and/or prescribed Rite of the Church, even if the priest offers it competely alone.  Mass and Divine Office are intrinsically public prayer of the Church, so in that sense there's no such thing as a "Private Mass", and by submitting an intention for a departed ѕυιcιdє, it's in a sense already encroaching into the public prayer of the Church, and the mind of the Church has been to not publicly prayer for departed ѕυιcιdєs.  That's another reason that just requesting a Mass to be offered for a "Private Intention" would be the best course of action, and then you offer your intention to God, making it clear that it's conditional, as stated above.  Normally if you ask a priest to offer a Mass, that's not typically a place for the generally long convoluted type of conditional intention, and that's why "Private Intention" suffices, and then you also don't wait for a rare opportunity when a priest might be travelling and have to offer Mass alone in a hotel room, but it could be offered at the main altar of your chapel with the priest announcing and/or publishing "Private Intention of [your name]".

To me that's the best of all worlds, keeping consistent with the mind of the Church, and yet giving you greater opportunity to get such a Mass offered, since I bet that only a small percentage of Masses are actually able to be offered as Private Masses.

Ladislaus-
 I agree with what you have said, but the issue not truly being addressed here is if in certain cases the ѕυιcιdє itself could be in question , as in drug overdose/ ѕυιcιdє or psych meds/ psychotic break/ ѕυιcιdє.
-a situation of intention or lack thereof that resulted in their own death.

Is it still scandalous to have an unattended (family only) private Mass (actually public as you so described), with the decision to allow a Mass to be ultimately determined by the Priest who may know the personal issues or potential lack of mental culpability involved?

(and not determined by the coroner who could only objectively pronounce for a ѕυιcιdє).

 Who makes that call? The death certificate or the priest's determination of the circuмstances?)

It is often unclear if the death was an accidental overdose or not.

Don't ѕυιcιdєs often leave ѕυιcιdєs notes?

OK- just read this- thanks

1917 Code of Canon Law Commentary

3.0 Those who have deliberately killed themselves. As a rule, says the Holy Office,11 those who commit ѕυιcιdє from despair or in wrath (desperatione vel iraettndia) cannot be given ecclesiastical burial. But when insanity has been proved, or was evident, and attested by the verdict of a conscientious physician, ecclesiastical sepulture is permitted with all its ceremonies. When there is a doubt as to the ѕυιcιdє's mental state, ecclesiastical burial may be granted, but all pomp and solemn exequies must be avoided. This would mean that the funeral service may be held from the church, but that the Requiem Mass should be omitted, as well as preaching, for this is certainly a species of " pomp." A private Mass may be said.

Yes, this speaks to where "insanity has been proved, or was evident" ... but struggling with depression and using SSRIs doesn't suffice to establish that as evident.  We're talking about a state of mind where free will would not have been involved, such as someone who's almost clinically insane, suffering from hallucinations, mentally retarded, severely autistic, etc.  In those cases, the reason there's no scandal is that "everybody knows" that this was not an act of free will.  That's what is meant by "evident" and even medically attested to.  There needs to be some clear and obvious condition known to all.  And of course, I would not take the opinion of just any old moder-day physician, the same ones that would be celebrating the individual having gone to a better place with clowns and balloons.  Then it says if there's some doubt (where MAYBE the SSRI and depression thing here qualifies), then some kind of very quiet/private funeral service without any kind of ceremony (this is where it's reminiscen of Bergoglio's distinction for the blessing of sodomites).  It's very tricky to have some "funeral service" in a public place, such as a church, and not give the wrong idea.  What's the point of it anyway without a Requiem Mass?  What good does that do the departed?  At that point, whatever they do could just be done at a wake or funeral home without the Church's direct involvement.  That's why I saw that the concerns are being conflated.  If the soul has been saved, then it's much more benefit to offer that Mass with "Private Intention" for that individual later on down the road ... but this type of even has no benefit to the departed.  If it's about the family, whatever commemoration minus Requiem Mass they want to do could be done at a funeral home or what not.  This sounds like a compromise where you invite family, many of whom don't even know the difference, and they can simply pretend that they're having a funeral.

It used to be taught at Catholic schools and sermons at Mass that if someone commits ѕυιcιdє, they burn hell.  Judas killed himself and ended up in hell.