Pope Leo Flatters Sister Death

A few weeks ago, Pope Leo XIV of the Catholic Church criticized Transhumanism during a speech in St. Peter’s Square. Predictably, I disagree with his criticism. Below are some relevant portions of his speech, in quotes, followed by my thoughts.

“Death seems to be a sort of taboo, an event to keep at a distance; something to be spoken of in hushed tones, to avoid disturbing our sensibilities and our tranquillity. This is often why we avoid visiting cemeteries, where those who have gone before us rest as they await resurrection.”

This may be true of some or even many people. But it’s certainly not true of all or perhaps even most Transhumanists. Some Transhumanists, particularly cryonicists, actually choose to work in locations that function as high tech cemeteries, such as Alcor. And cemeteries, both of the cryonicist and traditional varieties (where I took a film crew to visit my father’s grave), figure prominently in a major recent documentary on Transhumanism.

“… one might then think that we are paradoxical, unhappy creatures, not only because we die, but also because we are certain that this event will happen, even though we do not know how or when. We find ourselves aware and at the same time powerless. This is probably where the frequent repressions and existential flights from the question of death originate.”

We certainly don’t seem to have much power over death. And maybe we’ll prove to have none at all. But Jesus plainly tells us the opposite, commanding his disciples to raise the dead. This seems like something that all of us, especially the Pope, should take more seriously, trusting that we may actually prove to have increasing power over death.

“Praying, in order to understand what is beneficial in view of the kingdom of heaven, and letting go of the superfluous that instead binds us to ephemeral things, is the secret to living authentically, in the awareness that our passage on earth prepares us for eternity.”

Surely life itself isn’t one of those superfluous things that we should let go, even if it seems ephemeral at times. Surely life is beneficial in the view of the kingdom of heaven. How could we possibly live authentically, in any coherent way, while characterizing life itself as superfluous or merely ephemeral?

I trust that our passage on Earth is indeed preparing us for eternity. But take care not to mistake that as a euphemism for death, an “eternity” in name only. The eternity of which scripture speaks is as real as light and as warm as love. Judging from the resurrected body of Jesus Christ, immortality must be as tangible and embodied as flesh and bone.

“Yet many current anthropological views promise immanent immortality …”

Jesus called his disciples to raise the dead, imminently. His disciples, notably Paul, prophesied of resurrection to immortality, immanently. Perhaps a couple thousand years has made it too difficult for most of us to trust in such a calling and vision. Maybe we need new prophets, misrecognized as anthropologists, to remind us.

“… theorize the prolongation of earthly life through technology. This is the transhuman scenario, which is making its way into the horizon of the challenges of our time.”

Humanity has been prolonging Earthly life through technology for thousands of years. Our capacity to do so has been improving, with increasing rapidity. And there’s every reason to trust, actively and cautiously, that we can yet perpetuate this trend. If this is “the transhuman scenario” then humanity has been transhuman since the first tool we used.

“Could death really be defeated by science?”

Why not? Science is formalized shared knowledge. Presumably God already has such knowledge to defeat death. Why could we not possibly gain the same knowledge?

We aren’t God. Sure. But we’re children of God, according to Jesus, invited to become joint heirs with him in the glory of God. So while we don’t yet have such knowledge, there’s practical reason to trust that we may gain it.

Faith without works is dead, says the Bible. If we don’t trust in a way that actively expresses itself in action, then our professed “faith” amounts to nothing. If we actually have faith in the prophecies of eventual transfiguration and resurrection to immortality, as the Bible teaches, we ought to pursue them in the actively expressed action of works.

Technology is just that. It’s a formalized extension of human works, made possible by the grace of God. We find ourselves in a world that we didn’t create and cannot sustain on our own. But we’ve managed to understand it and apply our knowledge of it in wondrous ways, empowering ways, and life-affirming ways through technology.

Of course we can also do evil, even great evil, with the power of technology. All kinds of work, technological and otherwise, can do evil. But that doesn’t make works or their technological extensions evil in themselves. They are just works, to be used one way or another, hopefully for good.

“But then, could science itself guarantee us that a life without death is also a happy life?”

No. Of course not. Knowledge alone, whether formalized as science or not, cannot guarantee happiness. We need more than knowledge or science. But that doesn’t mean knowledge and science are superfluous to our efforts at a happy life.

Clear as the noon day sun, knowledge can contribute to our capacity to pursue and attain happiness. Where there is ignorance or deception, happiness is so easily thwarted. Knowledge, like its applications in works and technology, is power. And power is essential to everything good – essential even to God.

But power can be, and far too often is, abused. Like works and technology, knowledge and science can be abused. The salient challenge before us is not that of wondering whether science can facilitate happiness, but rather that of ensuring science facilitate such happiness rather than its opposite through abuse.

This means that we need more than just knowledge and science – more than just works and technology. We also need all the virtues that Jesus Christ exemplifies and invites us to cultivate in ourselves. Only by using science and technology according to such virtues can they dependably facilitate happiness.

“The event of the Resurrection of Christ reveals to us that death is not opposed to life, but rather is a constitutive part of it, as the passage to eternal life.”

The resurrection of Christ reveals to us that death can be overcome in life. Death is not good. And death certainly is neither life nor a constitutive part of life (unless we confuse apples with oranges, so to speak, by saying non-eternal death is part of eternal life, among many non-eternal lives). But there are some things that are worse than death, such as some magnitudes of suffering.

So death can serve a practical purpose. But that practical purpose is, or at least we must trust it to be, temporary. That’s the revelation of the resurrection of Christ. Death is a temporarily permissible evil that Christ overcomes – that Jesus calls us to overcome with him in Christ.

“Only this event is capable of illuminating the mystery of death to its full extent. In this light, and only in this, what our heart desires and hopes becomes true: that death is not the end, but the passage towards full light, towards a happy eternity.”

Death may be a circumstantial passage for most of us. But, per the Bible, it is not a necessary passage for all of us. In John 21, Jesus seems to hint that John would live until Jesus returns. And, most potently, in 1 Corinthians 15, the apostle Paul prophesies that “we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed – in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye.”

It’s not death but rather immortal life that serves as the necessary passage toward full light and happy eternity. That necessary passage may be attained, as Paul describes it, when “the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality” through transfiguration. Or it may be attained when “the dead will be raised imperishable” through resurrection. Either way, immortal life – not death – is the necessary passage toward greater happiness.

“Thanks to Him, who died and rose again for love, with Saint Francis we can call death our ‘sister’.”

No thanks. With the Book of Mormon, I will call death an “awful monster” – both “the death of the body, and also the death of the spirit.” There are worse monsters, to be sure. But we don’t defeat any monsters by pretending they’re our sisters, no matter how much we admire Saint Francis (which I do) or Pope Leo (which also I do).

We are not in sorority with death. We are at war with death. And Christ, including that expressed through Transhumanists and the rest of us, shall swallow up death in victory.