If you could come up with an organization with as much emotional oomph as the Catholic Church that took cryonics seriously, that would be very impressive, but I don’t think it’s possible.
On the other side, what would it take to convince the Catholic Church that frozen people were alive enough that care should be taken to keep them frozen until they can be revived?
In Dignitas Personae section 18 and 19 the Catholic Church asserts the personhood of cryopreserved embryos and, although it objects to IVF and other techniques for several other reasons, a major objection is that many cryopreserved embryos are not revived. It specifically objects to cryopreservation carrying the risk of death for human embryos, implying that they are either living or at least not-dead, and suggests the possibility of “prenatal adoption”, and also objects to any medical use or destruction of the embryos.
So, in a narrow sense, they already believe that frozen people are alive enough to be worth keeping frozen or reviving.
I think the problem would be justifying the expense. Since catholics believe in a supernatural bodily resurrection, they would still respect the preserved but feel no need to maintain them in a chilled state.
Well, a number of recent fights between “rational atheists”/secularists and the Catholic church have been based on the atheists and secularists complaining that the Catholic church’s interpretation of the obligation not to kill was too strong.
If you could come up with an organization with as much emotional oomph as the Catholic Church that took cryonics seriously, that would be very impressive, but I don’t think it’s possible.
On the other side, what would it take to convince the Catholic Church that frozen people were alive enough that care should be taken to keep them frozen until they can be revived?
In Dignitas Personae section 18 and 19 the Catholic Church asserts the personhood of cryopreserved embryos and, although it objects to IVF and other techniques for several other reasons, a major objection is that many cryopreserved embryos are not revived. It specifically objects to cryopreservation carrying the risk of death for human embryos, implying that they are either living or at least not-dead, and suggests the possibility of “prenatal adoption”, and also objects to any medical use or destruction of the embryos.
So, in a narrow sense, they already believe that frozen people are alive enough to be worth keeping frozen or reviving.
Agreed, getting the Roman Catholic Church to look after the “preserved” is probably easier than creating another institution of similar robustness.
Cryonics-like procedures aren’t totally alien to the Abrahamic religions: both Jacob and Joseph were mummified, as described in the Old Testament.
I think the problem would be justifying the expense. Since catholics believe in a supernatural bodily resurrection, they would still respect the preserved but feel no need to maintain them in a chilled state.
It would depend on how they interpreted the obligation to not kill.
Well, a number of recent fights between “rational atheists”/secularists and the Catholic church have been based on the atheists and secularists complaining that the Catholic church’s interpretation of the obligation not to kill was too strong.