Skip to main content

They Killed Themselves. It’s Not Tuberculosis

I’m tired of seeing “by suicide.” Frankly, I would rather see,  “X committed suicide.” Maybe enough of us know Latin, and that the word literally means killing oneself, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it’s an effort to deflect responsibility and agency from people. Important people want to do that so they can justify telling us how to live. If we’re all just feeling beasts with no decisional capacity, some class of betters can tell us where to go, what to eat, where to live, and when to die.

We can still have context in these tragic cases when someone takes his or her own life. Far be it for me to tell the God of mercy and justice what to do. But it doesn’t just happen; it’s not a disease process, in the strict sense.

What do you tell people who are angry in the aftermath? They don’t want to hear that some anthropomorphic Depression took down their loved one. They didn’t contract Ebola or COVID or tuberculosis. They decided—under duress perhaps—that dying was preferable to living. They were not taken or snatched away, unless we say they did it to themselves.

I’m the supposed believer in a book full of fairy tales, but we’ve got people out here who can’t even acknowledge what really happens in a suicide.

Let’s talk about Christian hope, since everything Christian makes so many people so mad, for odd reasons. The resurrection of the dead is the hope of Christians. Preceded by the resurrection of Christ, who now lives and reigns eternally, amen. Heaven is the presence of God, where He reigns in triumph with the blessed, now whole, body and soul, in the New Creation. If I am honest, I don’t fully understand what that all means. The key point is this: you cannot transcend death if you don’t acknowledge it.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...