Premise: The soul exists, the spiritual (arguably primary) expression of Who We Are. (If you aren’t willing to accept the premise, might as well skip on to the next post.)
There is clearly some connection, positing a soul (which I’ll stop caveating at this point, see above), between the soul and the personality we exhibit. I can imagine a system of metaphysics in which this isn’t the case, but let’s not.
In a traditional Christian cosmology (which is not necessarily, in this case, what I believe in, but never mind that), the soul is eternal, but, presumably, is of a different nature between, say, infants (or fetuses) and adults. Again, there’s a sense that as the mind progresses in development, so the soul grows in some way, too.
(If you go in for more of a reincarnational viewpoint, this connection works better, since you can have a soul that is related to the personality, but not necessarily tied to it, which is one of the reasons I lean that way in bull sessions on the subject, while realizing that I have no better idea of what’s actually going on than anyone else does.)
The Terri Schiavo case brings with it questions here, though, too. Presumably (see premise, above), Terri has a soul.
So, what’s going on with it, right now, working under the presumption that her mind has been essentially destroyed? If the mind is the expression of the soul via physical means (the brain/body), and the mind has been wiped out, we assume the soul is not, in turn, damaged.
Again, traditional view of the soul would have it that it still exists, a reflection of who she was, then, at the time her brain was so severely damaged. But what’s it doing? Does it know what’s going on. Is it lurking, ghost-like, over the proceedings? Is it trapped, silent and self-aware, in that immobile body? Or is it dormant, quiet, cut off until after death somehow brings us (back?) to awareness of the comic stuff we catch only glimpses of?
What does that imply in the Schiavo case, if anything? If the state of her soul is not in danger, does the decision by the courts, one way or the other, make any difference? Of course, we can’t measure or perceive the soul, so we use the biological proxy of life as our value (as well we should, since otherwise one can simply wish away any human horror by noting that souls weren’t actually harmed). But if the folks so eager to interfere in the Schiavo case really believe in her immortal soul, how does their perception of it affect or motivate their actions (we’ll make the further unprovable assumption that they are acting out of moral concerns, which some would consider as unlikely a premise as that at the top of this post).
And how, to extend the hypothesis, does that differ from the state of soul in our own bodies? Does it exist, awareness-wise, independently of us? Or does it rest dormant within us, unaware? What does that mean, and what implications does that have in our spiritual growth? As our mind fails, barely, or perceptably, or totally, with age, disease, or accident, we all face to varying degrees what Terri Schiavo faces. How does our perception of the soul, and our Purpose, and what the afterlife is like, affect how we want ourselves (or others) to be treated in those circumstances?
Drink several beers. Discuss.
I’m afraid that with me it would be drink several beers and sleep.
I was wondering about this myself. It seems that these days, for many Christians, Life trumps Afterlife.
Beers…this is more of a wine or good coffee discusion with comfy chairs.
Growing up I was taught that she would be in Purgatory. Which when she does die that she gets timed served and gets to move on quicker.
To late to think about now…more of a face to face.
Hmmm…Riffing off of what Avo said.
If christians love Jesus so much, why are they afraid to go visit him?
They had a good discussion on ths on NPR at lunch. A muslam gut, A jewish guy, a Catholic guy, and a Baptist guy (not at all like RLP). It was interesting to hear the differing religous views on the subject.
I suggested beers only because (a) it’s the drink of choice for bull sessions, for which this subject seriously qualifies, and (b) you get longer conversations because of the lower alcohol content. Try the vanilla honey vodka and you get up to about the third paragraph and your mind has wandered …
It’s true that Christians — most of them, anyway — while looking forward to meeting up with Jesus aren’t exactly clamoring to do so (those who are usually are tired or pained of this world, or else do nasty things like loading up the rifle and heading off to meet their Maker in a blaze of gunfire against some perceived Evil Sinner Types, so perhaps it’s just as well). Some reasons why, off the top of my head:
I probably, in my own nutty way, fall into each of those categories at times.
Ultimately, I shrug, trust for the best, and keep poking along as best I can. Growing up Catholic, I’m as comfortable as anyone can be with just attributing things to Mysteries and moving on, and these sorts of questions largely end up with that sort of missing conclusion. Unless your bull session turns into a Flatliners sort of party, of course …
Gah…Flatliners…Thanks for that segue.
From the NPS discussion from yesterday…
The Catholic and the Baptist said what you’d expect them to say.
But it was interesting to hear that the Jewish guy and the Muslum were on the same page. and that with in their faith, she would have been allowed to die 15 years ago, and that by keeping her alive, the family is thwarting god will, and as we all know, it is never a good thing to thwart gods will.
ok…Depending on the desired outcome of the discussion, good coffee or Honey Vanilla Vodka.
the family is thwarting god will, and as we all know, it is never a good thing to thwart gods will.
Well, there is a side tradition that advocates “struggling with God” (cf. Jacob), but, yeah, in general, not a good idea.
Of course, that then gets into what God’s will is, and how to recognize it. Is it God’s will to keep her artificially alive? Is it God’s will to allow her to die when you could prevent it? If God wants His will recognize, why not drop a meteor on her head, or kill her outright by Himself?
I find axiomatic appeals to God’s will in such thorny cases usually unpersuasive or sufficient as a prima facie case for doing anything in particular.
To me the Worst Case Scenario for Terri Schiavo is that she’s been conscious and lucid all these years, trapped in unresponsive meat. Not sure what level of Hell that is but it has to be one of them.
Yup.
An interesting quote from Jesuit theologian Rev John J. Paris (via Andrew Sullivan) touching on the point Avo raises above:
Here’s the question I ask of these right-to-lifers, including Vatican bishops: as we enter into Holy Week and we proclaim that death is not triumphant and that with the power of resurrection and the glory of Easter we have the triumph of Christ over death, what are they talking about by presenting death as an unmitigated evil? It doesn’t fit Christian context. Richard McCormick, who was the great Catholic moral theologian of the last 25 years, wrote a brilliant article in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1974 called “To Save or Let Die.” He said there are two great heresies in our age (and heresy is a strong word in theology — these are false doctrines). One is that life is an absolute good and the other is that death is an absolute evil. We believe that life was created and is a good, but a limited good. Therefore the obligation to sustain it is a limited one. The parameters that mark off those limits are your capacities to function as a human.
That’s a slippery slope, of course, depending on some sort of imperfect and changing consensus of what it means to be “human” or what the proper “limits” to those “capacities” are. It has the ability to devolve or be exploited into euthanisia for convenience. The same, is true, of course, for any limitation of any right. But it does recognize that the “right to life” is less absolute than the “fetishests” would have it, and forces us to engage in a lot more dialog about what our lives are and should be, rather than whether we simply have a pulse (or can swallow). And it brings the situation back into a question of person decision and responsibility, rather than imposed ideals from Washington.
Along the same path, some questions from Neal Boortz.
There is an intentional tension in Christian theology. As Paul expressed it to live is Christ and to die is gain. You protect human life because it is in the image of God. The value is intrinsic. Thus, neither so-called quality of life nor whether the person is a believer has any true bearing on this. There is no obligation to prolong life but there is a prohibition against intentionally shortening it. The debate concerning PVS and MCS is relevant in that it would seem that a person in a PVS has absolutely no consciousness and thus it can be argued despite the counter-intuitive evidence she is not really alive.
I’ve stated earlier where I thought the right erred. The left erred by smearing the integrity of politicians who responded to the appeals of Mrs. Schiavo’s family. The effect will be similar to President Clinton during the impeachment proceedings where people disagreed with the President but were disgusted by the attacks. Likewise, there are doubts even amongst Evangelicals concerning what Congress did. The left should say this is a hard case and give everyone the benefit of the doubt. The attacks by the left will engender sympathy for Congress and mitigate the extent of the self-inflicted damage by the right and will also mitigate the recent charm campaign the Democrats have had with Evangelicals.
The courts are right in part and wrong in part. All the scientific evidence points to the fact that Terri Schiavo truly is in a PVS. That’s where the courts are right. On the other hand, I don’t understand why Michael Schiavo is still guardian. The guardianship passes to the spouse because it is believed that this would be the one person who would have the best interests at heart. This ceases to be the case if there are conflicts of interests and for Michael Schiavo there are two giant ones:
1. Michael Schiavo stands to gain financially from Terri’s death due to the previous malpractice lawsuit where the majority of the payout went to Terri’s therapy. If Terri died that money would go to Michael. It was only after this happened that Michael stated that Terri wouldn’t want to live. This is all too convenient and the timing is suspicious just as the latest statement in the other direction by the Schindlers’ lawyers is suspicious.
2. Michael Schiavo is estranged from Terri and has two children by another woman.
This doesn’t make Michael Schiavo evil nor the ultimate outcome wrong, but it does make his hearsay suspect. The court should have allowed for a delay to truly determine what Terri’s wishes would have been given the uncertainty. The standard this week was also too high. An execution stay does not require a likelihood that the defense would prevail, just the possibility. By analogy this should have been the standard here.
Michael Schiavo is estranged from Terri and has two children by another woman.
His in-laws actually urged him to date and get into another relationship (back in the days when they accepted Terri’s status). While I have more trouble with his having had children in that relationship, I also understand (1) why they have not married (as it would directly interfere with his guardianship of Terri), and (2) how it would happen (given Terri’s state and what that marriage likely represents to him in his mind).
The court should have allowed for a delay to truly determine what Terri’s wishes would have been given the uncertainty. The standard this week was also too high. An execution stay does not require a likelihood that the defense would prevail, just the possibility. By analogy this should have been the standard here.
Given that this has been dragging on for 15 years, it’s hardly that there has not been a delay (after delay, after delay) to “truly determine” Terri’s wishes, which were based not just on her husband’s hearsay testimony, but others’ as well, as I recall (her sister, I think), under Florida law.
There is a bit of a paradox, I admit. If Terri truly cannot understand what’s going on, any delay does not harm her. It does prolong the agony for her husband and family, however, and if further delay is not likely to do anything but do that, then I can understand not granting it.
That said, there’s no doubt in my mind that it’s a hell of a lot easier to second-guess this stuff not being directly involved (or involved in reaching that legal judgment).
Agreed. This is simply hard and we should give everyone involved the benefit of the doubt. What is most distressing to me is that this is not happening much on either side of the debate.
True.
It’s also worth noting (in looking at the original discussion above) that there is a large strain of Christian thought and tradition that doesn’t posit an immediate afterlife, but instead that we all “sleep” until the Last Judgment, at which time folks are raised from the dead (with or without their original bodies, depending on the tradition) for final disposition to Heaven or Hell.
I don’t know that this debate is substantially altered by that perspective, but I’d be remiss in not mentioning it.