What is ‘left’ after death? In death the living being dies; the human being – the union of body and soul – ceases to exist. Even the limbs of the body, according to Aquinas, must now be spoken of in an entirely different sense.

It may still be meaningful to say flesh and bones; but in the strict sense, it is no longer possible to speak of a hand. Only a living, animated hand is a really a hand at all.

We cannot therefore think of the soul as unaffected by death – as the adjective immortal oftenseems to suggest. The New Testament itself never mentions the phrase immortal soul. The word immortal occurs three times and is attributed not to the soul but to the risen Christ and the human being of the era to come (both incapable of dying again).

Aquinas speaks instead of the soul’s imperishability or indestructibility.
The soul’s imperishability does not, of course, annul the tragedy of death. Why do we die? Why does death occasion such protest? “Do not go gentle into that good night…” the poet Dylan Thomas advised. “Rage, rage, against the dying of the light.”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (#1006) quotes Vatican II (Gaudium et Spes, 18) to the effect that “in a sense bodily death is natural, but for faith it is in fact ‘the wages of sin.’” This is clumsy expression. What’s the distinction between “in a sense” and “but for faith?”

Traditionally, the affirmation has been that death is a punishment - the wages of sin - though I have not seen an explanation of this that’s persuasive. I think death-as-punishment represents the extreme of the Biblical belief in a causal connection between sin and suffering, including sin and disabilities.

If such a connection exists between, say, sin and blindness or sin and paralysis (as the culture of the gospels presumes), one may say that a similar connection between sin and death is plausible. But if sin has no such connection with suffering (and we do not believe it has), then we need not burden ourselves with trying to explain how death constitutes punishment.

What can it mean to say that death is not natural in a sense? Death is natural, simply, because to be human is to be mortal. It is living forever, one may argue, that would be unnatural. What would constitute a life span? Three hundred years? Five hundred? At some point, one would beg to be allowed to die.

What “in a sense death is natural” and “but for faith…” may be getting at in an awkward manner is that sin introduced elements into death that were not part of its “original” nature.

That is, but for original sin, the proper nature of death would be a painless transition from this life to the next. It is original sin that’s responsible for the sundering experience of death with all its pain and trauma.

This is difficult to understand, and it seems to be tied to a particular conception of original sin, involving the historicity of Adam and Eve. If original sin is differently explained, as it can be, then certain presumptions that may fit conditions in a historical Eden do not apply.

It’s perfectly in order then to say that death involves pain and trauma because this follows from finitude, love, uncertainty, inevitability, and finality -- all conditions of life as we know it. 

Because life is what it is, in other words, death inevitably has its tragic character. The good news of the gospel from this point of view is that life on earth is only an antechamber, not our real home.

The indestructibility of the soul seems to imply that some form of existence for the soul immediately after death is feasible. Not all theologians agree with this.

Some hold that the make-up of the human being is completely unitary not dualistic, that body and soul can be distinguished but not separated. No special existence after death for the soul should therefore be envisaged, only a holistic resurrection at the very end. 

Traditionally, of course, the Church has affirmed an interim disembodied state after death extending to the general resurrection. At that time, when Christ returns, resurrection will be embodied and complete.

What are the Biblical warrants for a disembodied interval?  Jesus in the gospel of Luke says to the repentant thief, Today you will be with me in paradise. This presumes life with him before the end. St Paul’s testimony is even more to the point (2 Cor 5:1-10; Ph 3:20-21; Col 2:12; Eph 2:6).

Paul refers to life outside the body, nakedness, as he calls it, as life with the Lord, and preferable to life in the body, which is exile from the Lord. Even so, he does not abandon belief in the general resurrection.

Given these testimonies, what about the conviction – the solid conviction - that the soul is incomplete without the body. That may well be, but Paul is clear that the nakedness (of lacking a body)is still preferable to the exile of present embodiment.

 This reminds us, and it won’t be for the last time, that reflection on the afterlife is a form of “seeing dimly”. We must try to see and understand as much as we can, but it never will amount to completely clear vision.