When does soul leave body? Specific Scenario

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tommy999
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tommy999

Guest
Just curious what Catholicism teaches as to when a person’s soul leaves their body.

For example, if a person has a severe stroke and is pronounced brain dead but is kept alive for a few days by medical equipment in order to harvest organs for donation (she is organ donor) does the soul leave the body when brain dies and person is no longer responsive to anything or a few days later when the heart permanently stops?

Just curious what Catholic teaching is on that. I know someone who is in that situation now.
 
Last edited:
Just curious what Catholicism teaches as to when a person’s soul leaves their body.

For example, if a person has a severe stroke and is pronounced brain dead but is kept alive for a few days by medical equipment in order to harvest organs for donation (she is organ donor) does the soul leave the body when brain dies and person is no longer responsive to anything or a few days later when the heart permanently stops?

Just curious what Catholic teaching is on that. I know someone who is in that situation now.
I’m not sure there is an official teaching on the subject. I’d be curious if there is. I think for practical purposes, if there is any doubt, the person be considered (even if conditionally) still living.

As someone who views hylemorphism as the correct approach to material things, the question really comes down to whether the brain dead body is still carrying out at least some of its essential operations, or whether those operations have really been taken over artificially. I’m not going to attempt an in-depth reflection, and I imagine different adherents to hylemorphism might be able to argue either side of the situation. There can certainly be vague cases.

EDIT: I’m taking a look at National Catholic Bioethics Center publications.
 
Last edited:
Just curious what Catholicism teaches as to when a person’s soul leaves their body.

For example, if a person has a severe stroke and is pronounced brain dead but is kept alive for a few days by medical equipment in order to harvest organs for donation (she is organ donor) does the soul leave the body when brain dies and person is no longer responsive to anything or a few days later when the heart permanently stops?

Just curious what Catholic teaching is on that. I know someone who is in that situation now.
I err on the side of yes, in such a case, the soul is still present as the body’s processes are still being animated, but I also know arguments can be made for the opposite opinion (if you transplant a heart into another person, whose soul now animates that heart. Obviously, I would say it’s the soul of the recipient).

It’s fuzzy enough that current Catholic bioethics allow brain death as the line that marks death and the point past which organ harvesting is morally permissible.
 
Okay, I skimmed NCBC resources (so take my conclusions with a grain of salt), and it seems like there’s an acknowledgement that there is a gray area here since we can’t directly observe the separation of body and soul, but the presumption of death (separation of body and soul) at brain death even if the body is kept alive on a ventilator seems like it may be consistent with Catholic teaching. Again, though, we’re epistemically limited here.

You can find many resources on brain death on the NCBC Resourdes page: Resources in Catholic Bioethics — The National Catholic Bioethics Center

And some articles I found interesting, though I only skimmed them.



http://www.vatican.va/content/john-...uments/hf_jp-ii_spe_20000829_transplants.html
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the assistance, Wesrock. Very helpful. I’ll take a look.
 
Last edited:
The Church does not make technical judgements. So she leaves the criteria for the determination of death to the medical field.

The soul departs the body at the time the material body is no longer capable of effecting the animations emanating from the soul.

In the medical field, there is concern on the use of the “brain dead” criteria as definitive. Dead organs are of no use so their harvesting must precede the cessation of the bodily functions that maintain their integrity. But that’s another thread.
 
Last edited:
Just curious what Catholicism teaches as to when a person’s soul leaves their body.

For example, if a person has a severe stroke and is pronounced brain dead but is kept alive for a few days by medical equipment in order to harvest organs for donation (she is organ donor) does the soul leave the body when brain dies and person is no longer responsive to anything or a few days later when the heart permanently stops?

Just curious what Catholic teaching is on that. I know someone who is in that situation now.
It’s my understanding the separation of one’s soul from their body brings about physical death, but the soul lives on as it is immortal. And, when the soul separates from the body, it doesn’t mean it cannot be infused into the body again — consider Lazarus and others whom the Lord resurrected.
 
Last edited:
Just curious what Catholicism teaches as to when a person’s soul leaves their body.

For example, if a person has a severe stroke and is pronounced brain dead but is kept alive for a few days by medical equipment in order to harvest organs for donation (she is organ donor) does the soul leave the body when brain dies and person is no longer responsive to anything or a few days later when the heart permanently stops?

Just curious what Catholic teaching is on that. I know someone who is in that situation now.
You may find this interesting to read: When the Soul Leaves the Body – Jimmy Akin
“The soul is not just a thing which inhabit the body; it is the life principle of the body, the substantial form of the body, which is why when the soul leaves the body, the body dies and disintegrates”
 
Having observed natural death many times, I can tell you the line between “alive” and “dead” isn’t always clear cut.

Breathing may pause, the heart can slow down and skip beats.

The Hollywood version of death where the person just gives one last long exhale (after giving an inspirational last message) is about as accurate as Hollywood birth.
 
Even when the person is clinically dead and the soul is separate from the body, does not mean it cannot come back to the body, such as in some near death experiences. There is also the case of St Christina the Astonishing, who came back during her funeral.
 
Even when the person is clinically dead and the soul is separate from the body, does not mean it cannot come back to the body, such as in some near death experiences.
I believe that persons who are declared “clinically” dead or experience “near death” then revitalize do not have their souls separated from their bodies. For instance, a person who is declared “brain dead” whose body’s immune system continues to function or whose hair and nails continue to grow could only do so if the soul remains integrated to its body.
 
Fr Mullady talks about this in connection with giving the last rites here:


Last Rites for the Clinically Dead?

Question:
Is it possible to perform the sacrament of the sick on someone who has been pronounced clinically dead? If so, up to how long after clinical death can this sacrament be performed?

Answer: This issue is central to the pastoral care of the dying. Priests are often faced with a dilemma when they are called to spiritually assist those near death and discover on their arrival that the person has died. Traffic accidents lead to sudden death or the priest is too far away to arrive before someone has died and the issue of anointing is raised. What does one do in the circumstances?

This question may seem straightforward. A priest cannot give a sacrament to a dead person nor can a dead person receive a sacrament. So it would seem that one should just not anoint. But this is too rigorist and does not really correspond to the whole philosophical discussion involved in the question of death. The Church defines death as the condition in which the soul has left the body. Yet, the actual moment in which the soul leaves the body has never been defined by the Church and remains unclear. Clinical death is not metaphysical death. There is a process which occurs in death which may be only a few minutes to a few hours. The sacraments are only for the living. So there may be a time between clinical and metaphysical death when one could confer the Sacrament of Anointing without exposing the sacraments to ridicule.

Anointing, then, can be a special case. In the absence of the confession of sins, it can also forgive sins for those unable to confess. Hence its connection to the dying. This sacrament is defined in canon law as to whom it should be given: “The anointing of the sick can be administered to a member of the faithful who, having reached the use of reason, begins to be in danger due to sickness or old age” (c.1004, n1). The Catechism further clarifies:

The anointing of the sick is not a sacrament for those only who are at the point of death. Hence, as soon as anyone of the faithful begins to be in danger of death from sickness or old age, the fitting time for him to receive this sacrament has certainly already arrived.(1514)

The reason this question is not so straightforward is the contemporary debate over when death occurs, which includes issues which are ad rem to problems in medicine of euthanasia, organ harvesting, and issues such as these. In the past, of course, the anointing was basically done only at the moment of death. It was known as Extreme Unction and, although there is still an aspect of the sacrament where it may be used to strengthen the person to face death, its primary purpose is to give spiritual strength during any serious illness. The most important preparation for death would be recourse to the Sacrament of Penance and the reception of communion. All the same, if one cannot or has not confessed, the presumption is in favor of repentance and this sacrament has an aspect of the forgiveness of sin.

continued….
 
Last edited:
The question of when death occurs cannot be reduced to a merely physical one determined by medicine. One must remember that medicine is primarily an art, not a science. Of course, there are scientific determinations involved, but their application to physical body is not always infallible. The National Council of Catholic Bishops issued a definitive interpretation of the answer to this question of anointing in 1983 which still applies:

When a priest has been called to attend those already dead, he should not administer the sacrament of anointing. Instead he should pray for them, asking that God forgive their sins, and graciously receive them into the kingdom. But if the priest is doubtful whether the sick person is dead, he may give the sacrament conditionally. (no. 269)

Obviously a priest confronted with a decision about anointing is not bound to rigorous medical procedures, even those which may be uncertain. The first judgment must then involve the possibility that life still exists in someone considered clinically dead. Morally the presumption should be very broad since there is no harm given to the spiritual order in interpreting the possibility of giving a sacrament conditionally. Besides it may comfort the family that every spiritual care has been taken for the salvation of the soul of the person.

The second decision, therefore, is based on the first. If life could still be present, justice and charity would not only permit the priest to anoint conditionally but would seem to oblige him to do so. Fr. Farraher, my predecessor in this column, wrote a prescient article on this responding to the debate in 1982 and summarized the manualist tradition on this problem this way:

If there is no further sign of breath or heartbeat, but the body is still quite warm, anoint, but conditionally, as above. If a doctor has already pronounced the person dead, we must be careful not to occasion ridicule of the Sacrament. If the conditions . . . quoted from Jone (i.e. apparent death precedes actual death). A person dying after a long illness may be anointed within a half hour after he has drawn his last breath. Anointing may be done as long as two or three hours after sudden death. One might explain to those present that real death in the sense of the soul’s leaving the body does not necessarily coincide with clinical or apparent death. If danger of ridicule still exists, or if it is not easy to explain (e.g., accident with many people around) you could still anoint, but quietly, with the single anointing on the forehead and saying the words sotto voce. If there is any chance that the Sacraments can help a dying person, we should give that person the benefit of the doubt. (Homiletic and Pastoral Review, May, 1982)

This analysis seems to still be the best practical norm guiding the answer to this problem.
 
Last edited:
Could someone explain please why Catholic discussion about the soul always assumes it is ‘in’ the body and is able to ‘leave’ the body. Surely if it is without material form it can neither be ‘in’ or ‘leave’.
 
Last edited:
Could someone explain please why Catholic discussion about the soul always assumes it is ‘in’ the body and is able to ‘leave’ the body. Surely if it is without material form it can neither be ‘in’ or ‘leave’.
Always? First, the phrase “in the body” does not appear in this thread once. One post phrases the union as integrated. The verb leaves is not limited to the material world. So you can leave that thought behind.
 
Always? First, the phrase “in the body” does not appear in this thread once. One post phrases the union as integrated . The verb leaves is not limited to the material world. So you can leave that thought behind.
Well, the thread also includes words like ‘depart’ and ‘separated from’. And what is the difference, in relation to my question, of ‘in’ and ‘integrated with’. Are there things that are ‘integrated with’ a material thing but not ‘in’ it?
 
Well, the thread also includes words like ‘depart’ and ‘separated from’. And what is the difference, in relation to my question, of ‘in’ and ‘integrated with’. Are there things that are ‘integrated with’ a material thing but not ‘in’ it?
Quibbling? If you understand the meaning then what point in discussing vocabulary, grammar or syntax?
 
A soul is spiritual. The original meaning of spirit is breath which does enter and leave the body.

The notion of breath and air being composed of lighter molecule and atoms has moved air from immaterial to material.

The spiritual part of a person has stayed in the category of immaterial and language has separated spirit from air and breath in that respect. But language retains some of the forms, ie the spirit is inside the body.

One image of the soul as the form of the body is a balloon. The ballon is the size and shape of the air that fills it. Let out the air, and only the empty skin remains. Let out the spirit from a person and only the empty body remains, the life giving spirit no longer is joined to the body.
 
.
I don’t think that there is a specific teaching by the Church of precisely when the soul leaves the body.
It can’t be as soon as signs of life are absent, since people who have been dead for some minutes have been revived. The soul leaves the body within the next two hours, though, because no one has been revived at that point.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top