[Question:]{.underline} Is it permissible to embark on a hunger strike, determined to fast until death if one’s non-violent political action is not successful?
[Answer:]{.underline} The essential question to be resolved here is whether embarking on a hunger strike is to commit suicide or not. Suicide is defined as “the direct killing of oneself on one’s own authority” (Fagothey, Right and Reason, p. 276).
Suicide is to be distinguished from indirect killing, which is only indirectly voluntary, for death is not intended either as an end or as a means to an end, but is only permitted as an unavoidable consequence. Such is the case of deliberate exposure of one’s life to serious danger of death. This is certainly permissible, but only on condition that the usual rules of the indirect voluntary or double effect apply, namely that the bad effect of death is quite distinct from the good effect that is desired, that the good effect does not come from the bad effect, and that there is a proportionate reason to justify the bad effect that is permitted as an unavoidable consequence. This it is permitted to permitted to place one’s life in danger in time of war, in order to defend one’s country, even knowing that there is a good chance that one would be killed. However, it is never permitted to directly kill oneself, even for one’s country, for it is the evil effect of killing oneself which is desired in itself, and the good effect comes from it. This is always wrong, for the ends do not justify the means. Thus suicide bombers certainly commit immoral acts when they kill themselves in order to kill others. They cannot be said to act in virtue of the principle of double effect.
The gravity of the sin of suicide lies in the fact that it is a directly voluntary act, in which it is one’s own death that is intended either as an end, or as a means to an end. This is directly against the natural law, know to all men by their very nature, for by nature we are God’s and he has exclusive dominion over us. It is in the natural law that man, who is subject to God and dependent upon Him for everything, does not have direct or absolute control over himself, but only stewardship. For there is no other way for man to attain his end than by belonging to Almighty God, which a man refuses by attributing to himself God’s right over life and death.
A hunger strike is direct suicide. It is death itself that is desired, in order to obtain a political change. It is a direct killing of oneself, which is always wrong, regardless of the good that one hopes to attain thereby. It is consequently always a mortal sin, regardless of the political gain that could be expected. The only exception to this would be if a person had a revelation from God, indicating that it is God’s will for him to kill himself, so that it would be an act of obedience and submission to the Author of life, rather than an act of rebellion. A person who thought he had such a revelation could possibly be in good Faith. However, if he were sane, he would still have to be refused Catholic burial, on account of the scandal caused. Furthermore, it is not reasonable to believe that God would ever give such a command, so directly opposed to the natural law, upon which grace and divine Revelation build.
Answered by Father Peter Scott, SSPX.