Sacrifice/Suicide Situation - Looper Movie - Spoiler Alert


I was watching the movie Looper the other night. I hope some of you have seen the movie because the situation in question is difficult to explain.

There is a man (Man 1) doing lots of evil things, so another man (Man 2) goes back in time to kill the evil man when he is a child. When Man 2 goes back in time, he meets the younger version of himself. The older Man 2 (from the future) finds the child (Man 1) and is about to shoot him. At the last moment, the child's mother steps in front of the boy. The younger Man 2 realizes that it is the death of the child's mother that will lead him to a life of evil. The younger Man 2 shoots and kills himself, which makes the older version of himself disappear, thus saving the mother and preventing the child from growing up to do bad things.

Aside from the ridiculous notion of time travel, was this a righteous act of sacrifice or was it suicide? Is it automatically suicide because he had to intend his own death?


Hi. I've watched Looper (great movie, must see) and I was thinking about it for some time.

I took this from the Catholic Encyclopedia

Suicide is direct when a man has the intention of causing his own death, whether as an end to be attained, or as a means to another end, as when a man kills himself to escape condemnation, disgrace, ruin etc. It is indirect, and not usually called by this name when a man does not desire it, either as an end or as a means, but when he nevertheless commits an act which in effect involves death, as when he devotes himself to the care of the plague-stricken knowing that he will succumb under the task.

I think Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character falls into the second category, although possibly on the extreme end of the second category. Just my two cents.


He shoots himself, effectively un-looping (i.e., he never gets to be the older person of himself whom he is trying to prevent from killing the little boy a/k/a the creepy mono-brow kid who then never grows up to be the man killing all of the loopers so no one attempts to track down the kids medical records so the killer grows up to kill until he is sent back in time with a bag over his head and is finally killed by himself) and the whole plot breaks down, so they go to the credits. We come here to blog about it, hooray for Hollywood.


Oh boy! This is quite the interesting topic! :thumbsup: I am not sure I agree with what was stated below though--that if a person cares for plague victims--realizing full well that he/she most likely will also get the plague and die, commits indirect suicide. Were that true, St. Damian who cared for the lepers in Hawaii was suicidal rather than honorable or charitable toward the lepers, He himself ultimately died of leprosy and he certainly knew full well that leprosy was both contagious and fatal at that time. Also, there's Father Emil Kapaun, the Army chaplain/priest and recent posthumous US Congressional Medal winner, who allowed himself to be captured with his men during the Korean War when he could have easilly escaped the capture that ultimately resulted in his his death, Was Fr. Emil charitable or did he commit indirect suicide by remaining with his soldiers? Did he lay down his life for his fellow servicemen by choosing to remain, be captured and thus be able to care physically and spiritually for those captives for many, many months or did he commit a mortal sin?, Was he on the road to hell, or should he be on the road to being declared a saint by our church? For that matter, the many early Christians who chose death rather than to renounce their faith, committed indirect suicide and were not martyrs if the statement I refer ton is correct. They most assuredly knew from experience that Christians were killed for upholding the Christian faith--that to remain alive they must deny Jesus---yet they chose death over renouncing Our Lord. I could go on, but I think you see my point. To me, an example of indirect suicide, also might be a drug addict who, knowing full well that injecting a huge amount of heroin in his vein will likely result in his death--still chooses to do so, and dies of an overdose. It might also be that same drug addict--or also an active homosexual for that matter--who, while fully aware that in today's world, their lifestyle could well result in them being infected with fatal Hepatits C or HIV-- still continue to engage in said behavior. A final example, in my opinion, are people you hear of on the news who, having committed a heinous crime and while being sought by police (such as the Dimaggio fellow who killed a woman and her young son and abducted the 16 year old daughter last week), deliberately take aim at at persuing policeman with their gun, knowing all the while that the cop will shoot them dead on the spot (suicide by cop) for doing so. Am I correct? If not, please explain my error, and thank you!


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit