Now I have run into this before. The argument from modern Church that a person under depression cannot be fully aware of mortal sin and therefore cannot give full consent.

A person who is insane has impaired mental capacity, like for example a child. A child cannot give the same type of consent as an adult.  

I think you all get the point where I am going here. Just because someone kills themselves does not always mean there is no accountability not just for the ѕυιcιdє but for unrepented sins also.

There is accountability, but we don't always know where the person's diminished capacity left them. God in His justice will judge this person but in His infinite mercy will take the diminished capacity into account.
Another thing too, sometimes ѕυιcιdє is the result of hatred and sins against charity on the part of other people. In that case the other people who were the provacateurs of this personn's ѕυιcιdє will also be judged by the same just God as complicit in the murder of this person.

.

Typical of the Liberal outlook on things, modern psychobabble and likewise Newchurch equivocation will look to the EXCEPTION to the rule and finding it, will proceed to make that the NEW RULE.  

The normal outlook on ѕυιcιdє is that the person who so died met his last moments in the act of committing murder, which is to die in mortal sin.  

Only by EXCEPTION can it be otherwise, and since by the nature of the 'crime' we can't interview the participants, we are left to philosophy and moral theology to resolve our questions.  In the final analysis, it is in God's hands what becomes of such a one.  

But it should be rather obvious that anyone having just received Extreme Unction is not very likely to turn around and kill himself.  Rather, it is those who do NOT live in communion with the Church, who do NOT frequent the sacraments and who are NOT baptized and who DEFY THE WILL OF GOD who are most likely to commit ѕυιcιdє.  A perfect example of this is Judas Iscariot.  

Judas had everything going for him.  He was an Apostle of Our Lord, in person.  Who among us would not want to trade places with him on that account alone?  But of him Our Lord said, it would be better for him had he never been born.  Suddenly we're not so eager to take his place!  

But it is exactly this one, Judas the Traitor, that progressives in Newchurch are wont to idolize, when they have 12 other good Apostles to choose from (including Matthias, who took his place).  That alone tells you a lot.  It tells you where these innovators are headed.  They want to hold up ѕυιcιdє as some kind of thing to be admired.  The Church has never done so.  

Rather, the Church has historically condemned ѕυιcιdє, and teaches that our greatest penance is to accept the pains of our final agony, whatever they may be, as God's justice in our regard, as our sentence for the penance we owe for our own sins, and that by so doing, we would perhaps merit a plenary indulgence at the moment of death, which is the ultimate achievement of any penitential endeavor.  

But how could one committing ѕυιcιdє be doing that?

He would have to NOT commit ѕυιcιdє in order to qualify, and so, by the fact that he went through with his own murder would seem to exclude him from the possibility of having offered up his own final agony toward his works of penance.  Modernists would argue that he could have had a change of heart at the last moment.  Okay, and maybe the burglar who pulls the trigger on his Colt .45 and thereby kills you really had a moment of remorse the instant before the hammer struck the cartridge primer.  Sure.  

The Liberal way of thinking always looks for the exception to the rule, no matter how ridiculous it is.  

.

The only reason that I can think of that ѕυιcιdє without good cause is a mortal sin is because of St Thomas Aquinas who spoke on this in the Summa. His opinion was that the body belonged to the community, and hence we were not our own property.

However he also recalls a pious tale of the chaste women who, in danger of being raped, chose to jump into a river and drown, rather than suffer that injustice against chastity. They are regarded as saints.

Basically ѕυιcιdє is acceptable sometimes, but only if a greater good is served by it, such as refusing to sin.

Lets say someone was trapped in a secret service torture facility, with all kinds of evil satanic experiments and brainwashing being done on them with the agenda of having the victim lose the faith, then they would have a right to die to preserve their faith.

Also, thou shalt not kill is actually thou shalt not "murder".
Is it possible to murder yourself? Only if it is an injustice in God's sight.

However he also recalls a pious tale of the chaste women who, in danger of being raped, chose to jump into a river and drown, rather than suffer that injustice against chastity. They are regarded as saints.

Basically ѕυιcιdє is acceptable sometimes, but only if a greater good is served by it, such as refusing to sin.

I never heard of any saint committing ѕυιcιdє. I've never heard of such a thing as you describe. ѕυιcιdє is inherently evil. God would never put us in a situation where ѕυιcιdє would be a better alternative. It is a sign of despair to commit ѕυιcιdє rather than face the possibility of rape.

How about this scenario:

A madman has a group of people at gunpoint.
He is going to kill one of them but it's up to any one of the hostages to "sacrifice" him or herself for the group. All of these hostages are adults. 25-35 years of age. No children.


A few points:
The madman is a religious nut. He targeted this small group of people because they are all Catholic.

Having the above info, one would think, "Well, this is the -easy way- to get to Heaven."
Or is it?

The madman did not shoot the whole group. He is only asking for one "volunteer".
A hostage, by volunteering will be shot and the rest of the group will be set free.
Can that be considered ѕυιcιdє? Theological problem (mixed sentiments) by knowing (thinking) that you will be killed for The One True Faith and go to heaven for it...BUT in this case, one has to volunteer. Not so easy after all.


Thoughts?
 

No, it would not be ѕυιcιdє it would be murder be regardless if someone did volunteer or not.

Not enough information here.

Perhaps the whole group can rush the madman & get the gun away from him.  Maybe some will be shot & killed & that wouldn't be ѕυιcιdє.  Perhaps none will die, maybe some or one would be killed.   Maybe some or one will be shot but not killed. I don't like the idea of 'volunteering' unless it's someone who could try to get the gun away from him.