58. On Killing Oneself

1. Maurus, a novice, of strong powers and robust complexion, began to labor under grave pain of the head, although before entrance into Religion he had enjoyed the best health. Several remedies were applied, but in vain, to the great sorrow of Maurus, because, as the disease grew worse day by day, he became altogether unfit for the ministries proper to that Religion, and there was already question of his departure. After other physicians, Eugenius was called, a physician endowed with extraordinary knowledge and experience, but not of equal fame. Eugenius observed the sick man and, without any hesitation, immediately declared that he could cure the sick man, and with all certainty, if nevertheless the matter turned out well. For after other medicines had been applied, he said, one most efficacious still remains, which indeed will place the sick man in proximate danger of death; but if this is overcome, as there is certain hope, Franciscus [i.e., Maurus] will be immune thereafter through his whole life from an infirmity of this sort. The medicine was applied, and Maurus completely recovered, and is still well, and is an outstanding preacher.

Q. 1. Is there a precept of conserving one's own life? 2. Could Maurus apply such medicine?

R. To the first. Cf. I. M. 715, 716. To the second. Since the danger of death is nothing but a mere probability and not certainty of death, whence danger of death is distinguished from the article of death, a proximate danger of death, in the case, is really only a grave and very grave probability of death; on the contrary, in the case, there is moral certainty of health to be restored. That probability in no way contradicts this certainty speculatively. For that danger of death is considered from the extrinsic efficacy itself of the drug, not from the intrinsic disease of the sick man. But the certainty is taken from the intrinsic state of health of the sick man. Hence practically, in the case, there really is not a grave danger of death; but on the contrary there is moral certainty of recovering health. But this can be had, in the case, because Maurus, a young man otherwise of robust health and strong complexion, is deservedly judged able to resist the crisis which the violent drug will determine in him; and in this crisis every root of the evil is to be directly destroyed altogether by the powerful virtue of the aforesaid drug, or by force of the same crisis the aforesaid cause of the infirmity is to be dissolved. Therefore, since there is had a moral certainty both of overcoming the danger and, as is asserted by the skilled physician, of expelling the cause of the disease and the disease itself, it is permitted to commit oneself to such a danger, given the most grave cause: that otherwise Maurus would have to pass his whole life uselessly and be afflicted with grave pain of the head. Besides, in that first hypothesis made, namely that from the power of the drug the crisis is directly determined, and the root of the infirmity is directly extinguished, there is had an act producing two effects, of which one is good and is the one which alone is intended, while the other is evil, and this is beyond the intention and is merely permitted. But a very grave reason is not lacking why the bad effect can reasonably be permitted and the act placed. But in the other hypothesis, that the drug determines the aforesaid crisis of the whole organism, and by this same crisis the whole cause of the evil is resolved, as happens in various diseases, then the crisis cannot be called simply evil, but indifferent, since it is both evil and good at the same time: evil on account of the loosening of powers and weakness, good on account of the extinction of the depraved quality which is the cause of the disease. Wherefore again the case returns to an act producing two effects.

Hence, a fortiori, that seems to have been licit which I heard narrated about a certain man who was coming from America into Europe. Having been seized by a most grave disease of fever, which is commonly called flaca, and now altogether despaired of, he was cured by a certain hot and very powerful intoxicating potion. - Cf. I. M. 334 and V. 2, n. 89.

2. Eulalia, a pious virgin and most loving of chastity, when on a certain day she was being compelled to lust by a soldier and could not otherwise escape the danger, threw herself from a high window and, falling upon sand which by chance was found heaped in great quantity in the public way for repairing it, remained unharmed. After some months, violently seized by the same soldier, most constantly refusing to sin, she most urgently asked him that he would rather kill her than violate her; and then the fierce soldier, burning with anger, slew her with the sword.

Q. 1. Is it permitted to kill oneself? 2. What as to the case?

R. To the first. Cf. I. M. 710 seqq. To the second. Eulalia could rightly throw herself from the window, although this was done with evident danger of life, and although in fact she had afterward died. The reason is that first Eulalia did not intend to kill herself, but only to escape from the hands of the worst man who wished to violate her. But that action of throwing herself from the window, in these and similar circumstances, is an indifferent action, namely of fleeing in the case from the hands of a lascivious man, and of falling from the window to the earth. And, if it is considered well, that action is first an action of fleeing, and then of falling from the window to the earth, that is, first it is flight, and then a casting down from the window to the earth. And thus the same is permitted, even to escape a harder death, for example, in a fire, or also, probably, to free oneself thus by flight from the squalor of perpetual prison. G. 377, 379, 384; L. 367.

Eulalia could also ask the soldier that he kill her rather than violate her. For by this request Eulalia first certainly did not intend to induce the soldier to kill her, but only to avert him from the base violation of herself, to which she preferred death. But by that request Eulalia did not directly procure her killing, nor did she induce the soldier to kill her. For, force having been inflicted on her, since she had already been violently seized, she asked the soldier that he inflict on her rather the lesser evil of death than the evil, far greater to her, of base violation. Therefore she did not directly procure death, nor provoke the soldier to homicide; but she directly procured that she avert the soldier from inflicting a greater harm on her and from violation of herself, permitting her own death instead, if that soldier should be unwilling to desist from so great a crime. And in fact, to ask the soldier to kill her rather than violate her is not to ask that he kill, but to ask that he not violate, while at the same time showing a spirit prepared to undergo death rather than to consent to her violation.

3. Anselmus, a Carthusian, exercises grave tortures upon his own body by disciplines and hairshirts, uses sparing food also, and takes brief sleep; although he thinks that for this reason perhaps he will die sooner. Nevertheless, only after several years is he gravely ill, but even then he refuses to eat meat, although the physician has prescribed it as a necessary means for recovering health. Likewise he refuses to leave the cloister and return to his family for some time, although the same physician asserts that a change of air is altogether necessary for him.

Q. 1. What is the obligation of conserving life? 2. What as to the case?

R. To the first. Cf. I. M., n. 715 seqq. To the second. Anselmus in no way sinned by exercising various exterior penances. For by exercising them discreetly, which sufficiently appears in the case, life is not taken away, but only its vigor and longevity are not procured; and to this no one is held of itself. But spiritual utility and the exercise of virtue prevail over bodily convenience. Otherwise so many saints would have sinned gravely, rather than having been sanctified. And if it is permitted to artisans to sweat over hard works, and to diminish life for themselves by daily laboring, and to expose themselves to so many dangers of death, why will it not be permitted to a religious man to embrace bodily austerities for the good of virtue, by the counsel of a prudent prelate or confessor? Lig. 371. Wherefore Anselmus is not held either to eat meats even to avoid death, or to seek healthier air outside the cloister in his own country and family. Hence also someone can enter Religion although he is weak in health, nor afterward is he held to depart from the novitiate, or to seek food different from the common food, although he foresees that his life will be shortened from this. - Lugo, De Iust. et Iur., d. 10, n. 32 seqq.; Lig. 370, 371; G. 386, 387.

Besides, in singular cases, it matters very much to attend to what age, physical complexion, disposition, state, and condition that person is, to whom mortifications and exterior penances of this sort are conceded. "One must judge differently concerning the end, and differently concerning those things which are for the end. For that which is sought as an end must be sought without measure. But in those things which are for the end, measure must be applied according to proportion to the end. Therefore it must be considered that in the spiritual life the love of God is as the end; but fasts, vigils, and other bodily exercises are not sought as the end, but are applied as necessary for the end; and therefore things of this sort must be applied with a certain measure of reason, so that namely concupiscence may be tamed and nature not extinguished.... But if someone weakens the power of nature so much by fasts and vigils and other things of this sort that he is not sufficient to execute due works, for example, the preacher to preach, the doctor to teach, the singer to sing, and so concerning others, without doubt he sins; just as a man would also sin who by excessive abstinence rendered himself impotent to render the debt to his wife." St. Thomas, Quodlibet 5, a. 18.