Christian (but not Catholic) Dave Trowbridge basically takes my side in the debate over the viability of cryonics and its relationship to souls, with an interesting comment on an aspect that I’d considered in the past, but forgotten:

So in reality, whether or not one believes in the existence of a soul as defined and delimited by Mark matters not at all to the cryonics debate. In fact, the Catholic Church has already, in effect, come down on Rand’s side, for, as far as I know, the Church teaches that the frozen embryos used for in-vitro fertilization are human beings, endowed with a soul from conception, and that to destroy one is to destroy a human life. Yet, all metabolic functions have ceased in the frozen embryo, and prior to the birth of the first frozen embryo baby in 1984, medical, legal, and religious opinion would have been unanimous: a frozen embryo is dead, or, in Mark’s terms, there is no human being present.

Though as far as I know, the Church has taken no position on the issue, it would seem that to be consistent (not by any means necessarily a requirement of Church doctrine, I hasten to add), then they should endorse cryonics, or at least the notion that suspended patients retain their souls.