Every killing tears the soul?

[cubfanbudwoman]

No: HPFGUIDX 141611

Elyse:
> > I have asked this question ["Every killing tears the soul?"] 
> > before as well. This is precisely my contention with the whole 
> > Killing-tears-the-soul so called "canon".


elfundeb:
> 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, yes, this means Voldemort's soul is in very sad shape. 
<snip> ...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.


SSSusan:
I think this is just *such* an important point.  I have argued since 
early on post-HBP that there is possibly a difference between cold-
blooded murder and a class of what I would call "lesser killings," 
which would include accidental deaths, acting upon a superior 
officer's command during wartime, and perhaps mercy killings.  I am 
not convinced that the acts of "lesser killings" would result in a 
ripped soul.  

Before anybody yells at me ;-) I'm not saying I'm SURE.  Nor am I 
saying that I have canon backup for this.  I am merely saying that 
the quote elfundeb included, above, sure does seem to emphasize the 
*murder* part.  And also that, while we don't know JKR's views on 
mercy killing or wartime killing, it is quite possible that she makes 
this distinction between them and murder/killing out of hatred or for 
personal gain.

Consider that DD talks openly with Harry about what he believes to be 
the NECESSITY (or perhaps inevitability?) for either Harry to kill 
Voldy or Voldy to kill Harry.  He confirms this to Harry in OoP, and 
he **doesn't** later, in HBP, tell Harry, "Gee, I hate that you have 
to do this, because you know it's going to rip your soul!"  

In *my* mind, I could easily see the reason that DD does not say such 
a thing to Harry (even when the topic is right there before them as 
they talk about horcruxes!) as that he knows this is WAR, this is an 
issue of The Greater Good.  And perhaps he knows or suspects that 
this kind of killing wouldn't rip Harry's soul.

Or perhaps, OTOH, DD knows that it will rip Harry's soul, but he 
believes that it's WORTH it.  (Keep that in mind when you consider my 
belief in DDM!Snape, likely following DD's command to kill him on the 
tower.  See?  I think I'm being consistent here! ;-))

This leads to the following comment of elfundeb's:
> 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).

SSSusan:
Yes!  I go along with this, and I'm surprised that I've seen little 
discussion of this possibility of *mending* a torn soul.  Not that 
I've been able to keep up with every post, so I might have missed 
it. :-|  

Whether I'm correct that not every killing rips the soul in the first 
place or Debbie's right that a torn soul can be mended, either way 
there's hope for Snape *if* he's remorseful AND there's hope for 
Harry, should he truly end up killing (as opposed to some other form 
of vanquishing) Voldy.


elfundeb: 
> 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.  


SSSusan:
I absolutely can see JKR going in this direction.  There's a choice 
in most killings, that's for damn sure, but there's also a choice in 
what to do with the soul piece that was ripped off (if it was).  
Voldy's choice to create horcruxes sealed him as truly Evil and as 
uninterested in redemption.  We don't know about Snape, but I have my 
suspicions. ;-)  

Siriusly Snapey Susan