Every killing tears the soul?

[Debbie]

No: HPFGUIDX 141528

This has probably been discussed before but I've been AFK a *lot* 
since HBP came out --

Elyse:
> I have asked this question before as well. This is precisely my 
> contention with the whole Killing-tears-the-soul so called "canon".
> Slughorn told Riddle that in order to create a horcrux, you have 
to 
> murder someone. This was so that you could use the death of 
another 
> person to harness your soul piece to the object.Nowhere is it said 
> that *every* killing rips the soul.

What Slughorn says is this:

"You must understand that the soul is supposed to remain intact and 
whole.  Splitting it is an act of violation, it is against nature."
[here Riddle asks how you do it]
"By an act of evil - the supreme act of evil.  By committing 
murder.  Killing rips the soul apart.  The wizard intent upon 
creating a Horcrux would use the damage to his advantage:  he would 
encase the torn portion -- "

I agree that not every killing tears the soul (take the example 
given earlier of the hiker accidentally dislodging a rock which 
kills another hiker below); however, I think this language very 
strongly implies that every *murder* tears the soul.  

> And if this was the case, Voldemort would have his soul in any 
> number of pieces by now. 

And, yes, this means Voldemort's soul is in very sad shape.  Even 
the fragment he retains must be hanging in shreds after all the 
murders he has committed (according to Dumbledore, enough to create 
an army of Inferi -- and I'm sure all of them are acts of evil).

He has loads of people. GH itself would not 
> have happened. Lily and James' deaths had already torn his soul. 
The 
> significance of the magical power inherent in the number seven 
would 
> be lost.

No, even for Voldemort, most murders do not result in the creation 
of Horcruxes.  He has to take the further action of encasing the 
soul bit.

> I also like the point raised about indirect killings ripping the 
> soul. Does this mean that the bridge that was destroyed by the 
DE's 
> at the start of the book killing a lot of Muggles caused their 
souls 
> to be broken down into fragments? Did Emmeline Vance and Amelia 
> Bones contribute to the number of torn soul pieces in the WW?

One further thought.  We tend to assume that once a soul has been 
torn, it cannot be mended.  Perhaps this is because we are speaking 
of Voldemort, who has a mile-long list of evil deeds to his name, 
and no good deeds as far as we know.  But I think that torn souls 
can be repaired.  Borrowing for a moment from my old catechism, IIRC 
in the Catholic tradition, sin separates a human being from God's 
love, and confession and repentance restores it.  Why shouldn't 
something like this be true in the Potterverse? 

So in the case of Snape (all things come back to Snape in the end, 
yes?), I believe this thread was sparked by the assertion that Snape 
has a ripped soul regardless of whether Dumbledore approved his own 
killing.  I suggest that regardless of whether Snape's act would be 
regarded as a "supreme act of evil" (to quote Slughorn) that split 
his soul, there is the possibility of redemption which would mend 
the split (leaving a scar, to be sure, but still better than an open 
wound).

The difference between Snape and Voldemort is that by creating a 
Horcrux, Voldemort has separated the soul pieces, precluding the 
possibility of repair.  His soul has been permanently diminished, 
possibly foreclosing any possibility of redemption.  

Debbie
morbidly fascinated by the metaphysics of soul-splitting