Christian (but not Catholic) Dave Trowbridge basically takes my side in the debate over the viability of cryonics and its relationship to souls, with an interesting comment on an aspect that I'd considered in the past, but forgotten:

So in reality, whether or not one believes in the existence of a soul as defined and delimited by Mark matters not at all to the cryonics debate. In fact, the Catholic Church has already, in effect, come down on Rand's side, for, as far as I know, the Church teaches that the frozen embryos used for in-vitro fertilization are human beings, endowed with a soul from conception, and that to destroy one is to destroy a human life. Yet, all metabolic functions have ceased in the frozen embryo, and prior to the birth of the first frozen embryo baby in 1984, medical, legal, and religious opinion would have been unanimous: a frozen embryo is dead, or, in Mark's terms, there is no human being present.

Though as far as I know, the Church has taken no position on the issue, it would seem that to be consistent (not by any means necessarily a requirement of Church doctrine, I hasten to add), then they should endorse cryonics, or at least the notion that suspended patients retain their souls.

Thanks for noting my comments.

But really, accusing the Catholic Church of doctrinal inconsistency is a bit of a cheap shot, and incredibly wide of the mark. As you note, I am not Roman Catholic (I'm a small-c catholic, which is fairly analogous to a small-l libertarian--which I also am), and disagree strongly with many of the Church's positions. But, my (admittedly limited) readings in RC theology and philosophy have convinced me that it is at least as consistent as any other philosophical system, and probably more so. If you accept the axioms of the faith as interpreted by the Magisterium (and that's a huge "if" that I cannot get past), you have little choice but to accept their conclusions.

To an outsider (I speak from experience) the reasoning can seem tortuous--and perhaps it is. But, IMO, inconsistent it is not.

Not having studied it extensively myself, I'll take your word for it, Dave.

But accurate or not, I still enjoyed Ned Flanders' comment that "he'd done everything called for in the Bible, even the things that contradicted the other things." ;-)