As an Orthodox Christian, I found it most unfortunate that most public Orthodox commentators and even some of our bishops felt compelled to side, almost reflexively, with the more enthusiastic activists in this matter. As the citation from St. Gregory was meant to show, I respectfully submit that they seem to have misinterpreted the matter. I fear that this conflation of Mrs. Schiavo’s case with an otherwise admirable and consistent Orthodox defense of the sanctity of life reflected a surprising disconnection from the Church’s patristic inheritance on the relationship between body and soul. It also seemed to show a lack of appreciation for the extent to which most Fathers viewed the rationality of our rational souls as, if not the sole mark of being made in the image of God, a decisive element in distinguishing human life and defining human nature. Someone deprived of the basic physical means to exercise that rationality through cognition is someone deprived of a significant part of his humanity. I would hope that is common sense, and that it is not an unreasonable statement.

David Hart, the reliable Orthodox collaborator with WSJ and First Things, exemplified this confusion. Thus he said of Mrs. Schiavo two months ago: “Christians who understand their faith are obliged to believe that she was, to the last, a living soul. It is true that, in some real sense, it was her soul that those who loved her could no longer reach, but it was also her soul that they touched with their hands and spoke to and grieved over and adored.” Going from the rather thoughtless dualism he was criticising at the start of his article, he wound up at a rather weird near-monism (surely he knows that the soul is intangible and incorporeal, even as it is united the body?). Integrated unity of body and soul became, as it often can for Orthodox theologians, a catchphrase that allows the theologian to avoid taking seriously the consequences and logic of the idea being invoked. The approach to just war theory at First Things is very similar–the existence of the concept becomes a sort of permission slip for justifying any distortion of it, provided that perfunctory attention is paid to the original concept. If it can be used to caricature and mock one’s opponents, I suppose it is that much more attractive to that brand of theologian.

I had one last point, in response to Jeremy’s comment. As much as I would like to lay all evils at the feet of the neocons (and we can lay quite a few there), this episode was the product of a slightly different set of people on one side, undoubtedly allied politically with the neocons in many ways but different in their religion and religious politics, who were fighting against the generally secularist forces, including many prominent neocons, who rallied against them. (This is a somewhat crude description, I admit, but bear with me.) Outside of the First Things neocon circle, the neocon pundits themselves took a very predictably secularist, materialist view of the matter, and their general fear and loathing of genuine religion kept them far away from any sort of enthusiasm in this case. Some of them happened to disagree with intervening in the case, not because they were taking a serious, thoughtful view of the matter or cared about the law, but because they have no interest in actually empowering or supporting anything that even resembles, however confusedly, a social conservative agenda. The loyally Republican evangelicals make for useful cannon fodder for their wars and their political campaigns, but there is almost no group the neocons loathe more than those very evangelicals.

If there is anything good to come out of this sad event, it is, perhaps, that the efforts of the neocons were so unsubtle that Americans finally recognized their policies for what they were: posturing and power grabs. Polls showing plummeting approval rates for both Bush and the Republican Congress consistently cite that most people did not appreciate the naked ambition of Congress’ actions in interfering with this case, even when these same people were inclined to sympathy with Ms. Shiavo’s parents and the impetus behind the Republicans’ actions.

If this event contributed in any way to the neocons overplaying their hand and earning the suspicion of the American people, then perhaps there will be some redemption to be found.