Is someone on hunger-strike committing ѕυιcιdє?

Is someone on hunger-strike committing ѕυιcιdє?

Negative and direct ѕυιcιdє

Negative and direct ѕυιcιdє without the consent of God constitutes the same sin as positive ѕυιcιdє. In fact man has over his life only the right of use with corresponding obligations to preserve the object of God's dominion, the substance of his life. Hence, it follows obviously that he fails in this obligation of usufructuary who neglects the necessary means for the preservation of life, and this with the intention of destroying the latter, and consequently violates the rights of God.

Negative and indirect ѕυιcιdє

Negative and indirect ѕυιcιdє without the consent of God is also an attempt against the rights of the Creator and an injustice towards Him whenever without sufficient cause a man neglects all the means of preservation of which he should make use. If a man as usufructuary is obliged in justice to preserve his life, it follows that he is equally bound to make use of all the ordinary means which are indicated in the usual course of things, namely:

 * he should employ all the ordinary means which nature itself provides, such as to eat, drink, sleep, and so on;
 * moreover, he should avoid all dangers which he may easily avoid, e.g. to flee from a burning house, to escape from an infuriated animal when it may be done without difficulty.

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.

Application of principles

The principles which have been outlined in the four propositions or divisions above given should serve for the solution of particular cases; however, the application may not always be equally easy, and thus a person may by an objectively unlawful act take his life and nevertheless consider it permissible and even an act of exalted virtue.

It may be asked whether by performing or omitting a certain act a person may injure his health and shorten his life. To apply the foregoing principles: it is first of all clear (1st and 3rd propositions, A and C) that one may not have in view this hastening of death, but, this hypothesis aside, it may be said on the one hand that to expose oneself without sufficient reason to a considerable shortening of life constitutes a serious injury to the rights of the Creator; but on the other hand if the danger of death be not imminent, although it is to be feared that life may be shortened even by several years, it is not a grave but only a venial sin. This is the case with the drunkard who by his intemperance causes his premature death.

Again it must be borne in mind that with the addition of a reasonable motive the thing may be entirely lawful and even an act of virtue; thus the workman does not sin by devoting himself to rough labor, and the saints performed a very meritorious and highly virtuous act when in order to overcome their passions they lacerated and tortured their flesh by penance and fasting and were thus the cause of their earlier death.

No, smoking and eating red meat are not "ѕυιcιdє". The danger of death is quite remote, and far from certain. You gotta die somehow. If you somehow avoided heart disease, cancer would get you. Or some other disease.

Risky "sports" like skydiving and bungee jumping are sinful though, because there's no reason to risk your life in that manner for the sake of "fun" or "a thrill". These sports are proof that society has reverted to paganism. These activities are pagan, and would never develop in a truly Catholic world.

They do bungee jumping in Africa as a test of manhood -- they arrange it so that the head hits the ground just enough to hurt, but not enough to snap your neck.

We also have tattoos, body piercings, promiscuity, human sacrifices done for material success (it's true -- abortions are committed so a woman will be "blessed" in her career and have material prosperity) and other pagan trappings. See? We've become pagan again.

While we're on this ѕυιcιdє topic, I have always wondered about something.

Everytime ѕυιcιdє is brought up, the question of whether or not the person repented is addressed, and I think, so just because he MAY have repented for the ѕυιcιdє, is that it? That means he/she didn't go to Hell? What about the persons entire life? What about all the other sins? After all, the ones who commit ѕυιcιdє aren't devout persons but people who already lead a bad/godless life.

They make it seem as if repenting for the ѕυιcιdє will also "work" for all the other sins and the entire life of the person. And they say this of people who aren't even Catholic too, or in the Church.