MOST people no doubt remember how, a short time previous to his death,

Col. Robert Ingersoli, the agnostic lecturer, gave out a thesis with

the above title, offering a negative conclusion. Some discussion ensued

in public print; the question was debated hotly, and whole columns of

pros and cons were inflicted on the suffering public by the theologues

who had taken the matter seriously.

We recall, too, how
in the height of the discussion, a poor devil of

an unfortunate was found in one of the parks of the Metropolis with an

empty pistol in his clinched fist, a bullet in his head and in his

pocket a copy of the thesis: Is suicide a sin?

To a Christian, this theorizing and speculation was laughable enough;

but when one was brought face to face with the reality of the thing, a

grim humor was added to the situation. Comedy is dangerous that leads

to tragedy.

The witty part of the matter was this: Ingersoli spoke of sin. Now,

what kind of an intelligible thing could sin be in the mind of a

blasphemous agnostic? What meaning could it have for any man who

professes not to know, or to care, who or what God is?

If there is no Legislator, there is no Law; if no Law, then no

violation of the Law. If God does not exist, there can be no offending

Him. Eliminate the notion of God, and there is no such thing as sin.

Sin, therefore, had no meaning for Ingersoli; his thesis had no

meaning, nothing he said had any meaning. Yet, people took him

seriously! And at least one poor wretch was willing to test the truth

of the assertion and run his chances.

Some people, less speculative, contend that the fact of suicide is

sufficient evidence of irresponsibility, as no man in his right senses

would take his own life. This position is both charitable and

consoling; unfortunately, certain facts of premeditation and clear

mindedness militate so strongly against such a general theory that one

can easily afford to doubt its soundness. That this is true in many

cases, perhaps in the majority of cases, all will admit; in all cases,

few will admit it. However, the question here is one of principle, and

not of fact.

The prime evil at the bottom of all killing is that of injustice; but

in self-destruction where the culprit and the victim are one and the

same person, there can be no question of injustice. Akin to, and a

substitute for, the law of justice is that of charity, by which we are

bound to love ourselves and do ourselves no harm or injury. The saying

"charity begins at home" means that we ourselves are the first objects

of our charity. If therefore we must respect the life of our neighbor,

the obligation is still greater to respect our own.

Then there is the supreme law of justice that reposes in God. We should

remember that God is the supreme and sole Master of life. Man has a

lease of life, but it does not belong to him to destroy at his own

will. He did not give it to himself; and he cannot take it away.

Destruction supposes an authority and dominion that does not belong to

any man where life is concerned. And he who assumes such a prerogative

commits an act of unquestionable injustice against Him whose authority

is usurped.

By indirect killing we mean the placing of an act, good or at least

morally indifferent, from which may result a benefit that is intended,

but also an evil--death--which is not intended but simply suffered to

occur. In this event there is no sin, provided there be sufficient

reason for permitting said evil effect. The act may be an operation,

the benefit intended, a cure; the evil risked, death. The misery of ill

health is a sufficient reason for risking the evil of death in the hope

of regaining strength and health. To escape sure death, to escape from

grave danger or ills, to preserve one's virtue, to save another's life,

to assure a great public benefit, etc., these are reasons proportionate

to the evil of risking life; and in these and similar cases, if death

results, it is indirect suicide, and is in nowise criminal.

The same cannot be said of death that results from abuses or excesses

of any kind, such as dissipation or debauchery; from risks that are

taken in a spirit of bravado or with a view to winning fame or lucre.

For a still better reason this cannot be said of those who undergo

criminal operations: it is never permitted to do what is intrinsically

evil that good may come therefrom.

All this applies to self-mutilation as well as to self-destruction; as

parts of the whole, one's limbs should be the objects of one's charity,

and God's law demands that we preserve them as well as the body itself.

It is lawful to submit to the maiming process only when the utility of

the whole body demands it; otherwise it is criminal.

One word more. What about those who call upon, and desire death? To

desire evil is sinful. Yes, but death is a moral evil when its mode is

contrary to the laws of God and of nature. Thus, with perfect

acquiescence to order of Divine Providence, if one desire death in

order to be at rest with God, that one desires a good and meritorious

thing and with perfect regularity; it is less meritorious to desire

death with the sole view of escaping the ills and troubles of life; it

would even be difficult to convict one of mortal offending if he

desired death for a slight and futile reason, if there be due respect

for the will of God. The sin of such desires consists in rebellion

against the divine Will and opposition to the providence of God; in

such cases the sin is never anything but grievous.