Essay Cloning inspires new talk about the soul
By PAMELA SCHAEFFER
NCR Staff
When talk in the news magazines turned earlier this month to the
ethics of cloning -- not just sheep, but possibly human beings -- the
compelling question for some journalists was the nature of "soul." The
discussion found its way into millions of households through such unexpected
vehicles as The New York Times and Time magazine.
Suddenly soul in the popular press was no longer an adjective
modifying music or food. It was a noun again -- an ancient concept turning out
in new dress. Perhaps soul -- the essence of the human person, that indefinable
element that makes each of us unique and capable of transcendence -- is
reducible to DNA. Maybe souls can be cloned.
Geneticists (the new experts on soul?) were quick to say no. Even
identical twins, who share DNA, are clearly distinct persons with different
personalities, different likes and dislikes, despite their common genes.
Here at NCR, we quoted Griffin Trotter, physician and
professor of ethics at St. Louis University's Center for Health Care Ethics,
who said, "Two people with the same genetic code would have a different soul --
or, if you don't like that word, whatever it is that makes them an individual."
Jesuit Fr. Kevin Fitzgerald, a geneticist from Chicago, said, "The notion of a
disembodied soul is outdated in most Christian theology."
Lurking around the edges of the national debate was an ancient
religious mystery: What is the nature of the afterlife? We noted, "Many
theologians today -- drawing on both modern biblical theology and scientific
knowledge of the human brain -- understand soul as a dimension of human
development, rejecting the ancient notion of soul as something 'infused' from
outside. For today's biblical scholar, salvation means resurrection of a body
that incorporates a soul rather than immortality of a separated soul."
Spurred on by readers who wanted to know more, and in keeping with
the Easter season, it seemed appropriate to delve a little deeper into the
history and place of resurrection theology in Catholic thought.
It may seem elementary to say that Christians believe in
resurrection of the body -- after all, don't we say something like that every
Sunday in the Creed? But it isn't always so clear. Plato's notion of an
immortal soul -- a soul that separates from the mortal body at death -- has
long infected Christian thought.
Greek philosophers and Hebrew prophets were talking about an
afterlife several centuries before the birth of Jesus -- but from markedly
different perspectives. The dualist Plato found it hard to comprehend that
spirit could be bound to flesh, reasoning that such entrapment violated the
very nature of spirit. He concluded that souls became imprisoned in bodies as a
result of some sin committed in a previous life. Once the body died, the soul
was set free to exist immortally. The matter-hating Gnostics of the second
century of the Christian era took up this idea with a vengeance -- and were
declared heretics by the church.
Aristotle got closer to what would become the Christian view in
his insistence that there is a fundamental unity to body and soul in the human
person. He wasn't a dualist, and he argued that the soul died with the
body.
Bodily resurrection
Meanwhile, even before Plato, Hebrew prophets had alluded to a
bodily resurrection. For example, both Ezekiel and Isaiah used resurrection
imagery as metaphor for hope in the restoration of Israel. Ezekiel wrote in his
vision of dry bones coming to life, "Then you shall know that I am the Lord
when I open your graves and have you rise from them" (37:12). In the fifth
century B.C., Isaiah wrote, "Your dead shall live, their corpses arise"
(26:19).
Such vague poetic imagery had evolved into a more specific belief
in a personal resurrection by the time of Daniel. "Many of those who sleep in
earth's dust shall awake, some to eternal life, some to shame and eternal
confusion," he wrote in the second century BCE. Biblical scholars say that
belief in resurrection was widespread in the apocalyptic atmosphere of the
first century BCE.
Jesus was born into that era -- and the scriptures present him as
a proponent of resurrection as well as the Resurrected One. When the Sadducees,
disbelievers in resurrection, challenged Jesus, asking to whom the woman with
seven husbands would be married in the afterlife, Jesus admonished them that it
constitutes a new sort of existence. "When people rise from the dead [notice he
didn't say souls] they neither marry nor are given in marriage but live
like angels in heaven," he said.
When Paul began evangelizing among the Greeks, he had to contend
with the body/soul dualism of Plato. As a Hebrew, Paul believed that body and
soul, or spirit, were parts of an indivisible whole. He insisted that life
beyond death -- though different from the life we know -- is still an
integrated life, involving a resurrected body, a whole person.
"Tell me," he asked the Corinthians (15:12), "if Christ is
preached as raised from the dead, how is it that some of you say there is no
resurrection of the dead? .... If the dead are not raised, then Christ was not
raised; and if Christ was not raised, your faith is worthless." Paul reminds
the Corinthians of all the appearances Jesus had made since his death: to
Cephas, to the Twelve, to 500 people "most of whom are still alive," and to
James. Paul concludes, "Last of all, he was seen by me."
In other words, the result of the resurrection for Jesus was not
some disembodied soul floating around in space but a recognizable form --
although not as recognizable as before his death. While the gospels disagree on
exactly where and to whom the post-resurrection Jesus appeared, a pattern
emerges. Jesus shows himself when disciples are gathered in one place, when
they are worried about something. As on the road to Emmaus, when it took
several hours -- until Jesus broke bread -- for the disciples to recognize the
person before them as Jesus, his identity is nearly always concealed until some
gesture or phrase gives him away.
Whatever soul is, it was clearly there with Jesus'
transformed body. Also, the post-resurrection Jesus does things he hadn't done
formerly. For example, he enters through a locked door on a visit to the
disciples gathered in the upper room (John 20:19).
It is these post-resurrection stories about Jesus that form the
basis of Christian beliefs about the afterlife. Christ's resurrection is the
model for ours. Paul told the Romans (8:11), "If the Spirit of him who raised
Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead
will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit who dwells in
you." And he told the Philippians (3:21), "He will give a new form to this
lowly body of ours and remake it according to the pattern of his glorified
body."
New possibilities
Paul is talking about something clearly beyond human experience
here, although he is drawing on the biblical accounts of the resurrected Jesus
and affirming the goodness of creation. Generally, death in biblical thought is
transition into a new life and new possibilities -- a spiritual existence
somehow involving the whole humanness of the person who died. Though it bears
some relation to a person's body in life (irrespective of whether it was
destroyed through cremation or some form of violent death), it is not a
corporal existence as we know it on earth.
A problem develops, though, because in the New Testament,
resurrection of the body is associated with the Parousia, or Second Coming of
Christ in glory. That leaves a gap between an individual's death and the end of
time. To close the gap, the church, in its "both-and" mode, has borrowed from
Plato, teaching that the soul separates from the body at death, and is reunited
with the body on "the last day." In fact, historical time stops at death -- and
the "gap," existing outside historical time and space, may be no gap at all.
Surprisingly, no church council has pronounced definitively on the
resurrection, despite its place at the core of Christian faith.
In Christian teaching, eternal life is not due to some property
intrinsic to the soul but is regarded as entirely a gift of God.
"I am the resurrection and the life," Jesus declared to Martha in
the story in John's Gospel about the raising of Lazarus.
Still, the Platonic notion of soul hung around in the early
church. Many of the early Christian patriarchs found Greek ideals congenial,
and some had a hard time separating their Plato from their Paul. Confusion
continued through the early Middle Ages, extending into the writings of the
early Scholastics. It wasn't until the high Middle Ages -- around the 13th
century -- that the Aristotelian concept of a more unified soul and body took
hold in the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas, which gave philosophical
underpinnings to the biblical teaching. But the confusion didn't disappear, and
talk of an immortal soul separated from a body after death gained prominence
again in the 16th century in the work of Rene Descartes.
Franciscan Fr. Bernard Marthaler writes in The Creed
(Twenty-Third Publications, 1993), "In contrasting physical and spiritual, soul
and body, popular Catholic works tend to propagate ideas that are closer to
Cartesian philosophy than the Christian theology."
Worth worrying about
If all this sounds as if it's not worth worrying about, one
historian impressively argues otherwise. In The Resurrection of the Body in
Western Christianity, 200-1336 (Columbia University Press, 1995) Caroline
Walker Bynum writes that Christianity's strongly defended, if somewhat
confused, teaching that body is crucial to self "is a concept of sublime
courage and optimism. It locates redemption there where ultimate horror also
resides -- in pain, mutilation, death and decay." Christian thinkers through
the ages may have failed to provide plausible answers to all the questions, but
especially today, when bodies are subject to so many forms of medical
manipulation, "it is hard to feel they got the problem wrong," she writes.
Jesuit Fr. Gerald O'Collins, writing in What Are They Saying
About the Resurrection? (Paulist Press, 1978) suggested that modern science
may provide some new perspectives on resurrection -- for example by relating it
to the enormous energy that physics has shown to be present in matter or the
continuity of genetic structures.
For now, the cloned sheep Dolly may have renewed the questions,
but she provides no new solutions. The "how" of resurrection remains a mystery.
But the biblical teaching is clear: Body and soul go together, not just for
now, but for all time.
National Catholic Reporter, March 28,
1997
|