My intent in this particular post is not necessarily to discuss whether or not this exhibit should be allowed, or whether or not people should go see it. Personally, I see a lot of benefit in having such a display; but I also see a number of reasons not to attend. Instead, my intent here is to deal with an odd connection of ideas that were conveyed when the story was (briefly) aired on the nightly news. The narrating reporter said one thing:
The bodies come from the Chinese government. They're unclaimed corpses, which is a problem for the National Catholic Bioethics Center, because the mystery men and women didn't give permission to be put on display postmortem.A leading representative of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, then responded with:
We believe that the body will resurrect--at the end of the world--and be reunited with our souls. And, what this means is that, that's exactly the reason why we have to show respect. . .[quote cut off]It was because of this response that my wife and I looked at each other in utter confusion. We both wondered: "what did Father what's-his-name's comment have to do with whether or not permission was given? How does the resurrection fit into that?" (I would have to hear the remainder of the quote before fully understanding the connection; but alas, I could not find the rest of the quote).
Is Father Pacholczyk suggesting that bodies have to be completely intact and in specific locations (i.e., a grave of some kind) in order to share in the resurrection? I would hope not, for two reasons: 1) it would contradict the Catholic position on the donation of organs, which it does allow; and 2) it promotes a serious theological flaw with respect to the nature of the resurrection.[1] If he is not arguing for this suggestion, then why does he even mention it?
It would seem as though he is using it to buttress the second half of the quote--i.e., the reality and nature of the resurrection is why we must show respect. I really hope he is not truly arguing for this position; but, sadly, it appears as though this is what he is arguing: "that is exactly the reason . . ." (emphasis mine). A vital question naturally emerges in response to this: Why is the resurrection the defining factor for showing respect?
To me, from a logical point of view, the only reason why such a factor is considered is if one believes that bodies have to be completely intact and in specific locations in order to take part in the resurrection. But this takes us right back to where we were before, which is never a fun place to be if we didn't want to be there in the first place. If this is in fact the reason why the issue of resurrection is raised, then Father Pacholczyk must offer an explanation for the two problems noted above.[2]
On the Catholic Bioethics website, Father Pacholczyk provides an article listing four criteria (found here) that must be met before allowing this type of exhibit. He even states that the primary focus should be on the first two criteria. For him, as long as the bodies are 1) not placed in disrespectful poses and 2) they are used solely for the purpose of education; then, by all means--display the bodies. Interestingly enough, however: the topic of resurrection is never mentioned in his article. If one were to go on the comments made during the news report, they would expect to find the topic of resurrection on the list of necessary criteria. But alas, no resurrection (on the list that is).
_________________________________________
[1] See this article, which speaks to the "misguided belief that one needs all body parts intact to be resurrected"
[2] I am waiting to hear back from Father Pacholczyk on this. I sent him an e-mail on 31-Jul and today is 5-Aug. If I ever hear from him, I'll update this post accordingly.
