Dear Linda:

I read the article you reference.

The Church's position on organ donations is stated in the Catechism:

2296 Organ transplants are in conformity with the moral law if the physical and psychological dangers and risks to the donor are proportionate to the good that is sought for the recipient. Organ donation after death is a noble and meritorious act and is to be encouraged as an expression of generous solidarity. It is not morally acceptable if the donor or his proxy has not given explicit consent. Moreover, it is not morally admissible directly to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even in order to delay the death of other persons.

The key factor is the definition of death. It is certain, I believe, that the mere fact that the heart beats, respiration occurs, and other bodily functions are intact does not constitute ontological human life by itself. The organs and body (the human machine), in-and-of-itself, is not the measure of human life. The body can, theoretically, be kept alive almost indefinitely through technology.

St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that we have three kinds of soul.

1) Vegetative Soul: This is the basic "life force" that imbues all living things -- humans, animals, and plants. Plants have a "vegetative soul" but do not have the other two.

2) Sensitive Soul: This what gives humans and animals the ability to sense and to respond to the world around them. It is the faculty of "feeling" derived from biological factors.

3) Rational Soul: This is the soul that is created in the image of God and is eternal. The Rational Soul is that part of the human person with "godly" attributes of reason, creativity, self-awareness and reflection, love, and free will.

It is our "Rational Soul" that survives our death. However, since the soul is ordered to the body, we shall all be resurrected at the final judgment. Our Rational Souls (spirits) will be reunited with our bodies.

Since the biological organism of our bodies, that contain the vegetative and sensitive souls, can be artificially kept "alive" this cannot in itself be the standard of when a human life ends in this world.

True human death, it seems to me, must be defined as when the "Rational Soul" leaves the body. The question then is when does the "Rational Soul" (the human spirit) leave the body?

I am not sure we can ever precisely know the answer to that question. Certainly the Rational Soul (the human spirit) will not remain in a biologically dead body, but even with that definition, we cannot know precisely when the human spirit leaves the biologically dead body -- immediately, in five minutes, an hour?

Since the brain is the center of human life in that it regulates the vegetative soul (the biology) and interprets the sensitive soul (the feelings and senses of the world around us experienced by the body), that if the brain is no longer functioning, except perhaps on the most primitive and basic levels, how is the human truly alive except as a biological machine? and even that might need technology to be maintained.

Since the Rational Soul (the spirit) is ordered to the body, and the brain the center of regulation of the body, and the interpretation of the senses, will the human spirit remain in the body of a person who is brain dead? or in a person who is "alive" only by technology?

It seems to me that although the Vegetative and Sensitive souls may still have a function in a brain dead person, can there be an ontological reality for the human spirit when the brain can no longer function beyond a mere biological basis?

I think these questions are more easily answered in the case of a person whose body is "alive" only by the technology attached to it and without that technology the body would cease to function altogether.

In the case of a person who is brain dead only in the higher brain functions, but the lower functions that can maintain autonomic functions still are viable, we have a much greater "sticky-wicket."

A person who's heart beats on its own, can breath on their own, etc. without technology is not a person who would be buried in a grave as being dead. Should such a person have their heart harvested? I would say, "no", because the person is alive at least in the sense that they are not "ready to be buried" yet.

Since we cannot know precisely when the Rational Soul (spirit) leaves the body, I think we must error in favor of life if that life can exist on its own without technology (except for hydration and nourishment).

In situations where a person cannot maintain biological life, aside from hydration and nourishment, without artificial and extraordinary technological means, and it is certain the person will die when taken off the technology, I find no moral problem in the donation of the heart while it is still beating (if only by artificial means) before the "plug is pulled" when the patient and/or family of consented.

I do agree that although I think there is a general knowledge that heart transplants involve harvesting a heart that is still beating, it is probably true that there is much confusion on the issue of "brain death with the heart beating on its own," and "brain death with the heart unable to beat except through extraordinary technology."

This distinction needs to be understood and I would suggest that any Medical Directive not allow the organ donation until such time as biological death is certain without the extraordinary technology.

This is my take on it anyway.

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary