As an ordained clergyman, I am perplexed and dismayed that religion, which
exists primarily to support, encourage and enhance life, would instead be
used to inhibit research which could lead to the enhancement and prolonging
of life, and yet is done in the name of standing up for life!  Since when do
we elevate the importance of potential life (stem cells) over that of
actual, produced life - existing, breathing, walking, talking human beings?


Since religion exists to lessen suffering in the world, I can only conclude
that any religion that would discourage research that could lead to
lessening humanity's suffering (i.e., stem cell research that could lead to
cures for diseases that lead to tremendous suffering and eventual death),
can only be a false religion in that it is advocating the very opposite of
that for which religion exists.

It saddens me when sufferer's are made to feel guilt for desiring a cure,
feeling they must choose between health and their eternal salvation, or when
people are made to feel selfish for desiring life, i.e., the editorial
Camilla referred to where the author accused sufferer's seeking cures of
being selfish and self-serving and that their "primary motivation is the
betterment of self."  Since when was bettering oneself and seeking life and
health something selfish and sinful?

I am reminded of the words spoken by one who many opponents of stem cell
research claim to admire, worship and follow:  "I am come that they may have
life, and have it more abundantly."  If seeking life (and seeking it more
abundantly in one that is free of disease, suffering and death) is a form of
selfishness, then it is a selfishness that the originator of Christianity
himself approved of and advocated, and wished for his followers.

The idea that denying and devaluing one's body and health makes one somehow
more spiritual and less selfish has its roots in neoplatonism which made a
cleavage between the spirit and the flesh and led people to believe that to
nourish and enhance the spirit, they had to denigrate and deny the flesh.
Hebraic thought never made such a separation.  Judaism had a wholistic view
of man, teaching that the spirit and body were to be respected, honored and
cherished as gifts of God.  They were viewed as one, not split apart and
pitted one against the other as did neoplatonism.

Understanding the history and rise of neoplatonism within Christianity and
it's continuing influence to this day will help people understand why
stem-cell research that hold such promise for humanity are controversial
even in our "enlightened" 20th century.  Unfortunately, early Christianity
moved away from its Judaic roots and instead of viewing man wholistically,
embraced neoplatonism in the form of what became known as the contemptus
mundi (contempt for the world).  Denying the body and anything physical was
thought to enhance the spiritual.  Thus, a diseased body was to be ignored
rather than healed, since the flesh was itself "evil," and thus by ignoring
it's physical needs, the spirit within would be nurtured and prepared for
heaven.

The human body and its basic desires and emotions were denigrated.  Rather
than viewing the body and its desires as an expression of spirituality and a
gift of God, they were looked upon with fear and disdain, as something that
would hinder spiritual growth.  An example is the natural desire to partake
of food that is pleasing to the palate.  Eating food not only sustains life,
but adds to life's enjoyment as the taste buds are both tantalized and
satisfied.  Because of the influence of neoplatonism upon the church, food
became viewed as good if used solely to sustain life, but was viewed as
feeding the "lower nature" if eaten for taste and enjoyment.  Based on this
neoplatonic line of thinking, Beurrier assured his listeners at
Saint-Ettienne-du-Mont that the Lord "never ate any food for its flavor, but
out of pure necessity."

The contemptus mundi, based on neoplatonic roots, in many respects became
the church's central message.  This led to monasticism and flagellants, who
to this day in some countries during Easter whip their backs raw until the
blood runs down the street, believing they are imitating their Lord and
enhancing the spirit by literally destroying the flesh.

The following taken passage taken from Angelo Torini's book, Brieve
Collezione Della Miseria dellal Umana Condizione, illustrates the church's
continual education toward self-hatred and self-despisement:

Lothair (1, VIII, 1): "Look at the grasses and the trees, they produce
flowers, leaves and fruit, but all that you produce are nits, lice, and
worms.  The former give out oil, wine and balm, but you, you exude saliva,
urine, and dung.  The former emanate pleasant odors, but you give off an
abominable stench."

Torini (XVII, 17-19):  "What fruit do we bear?  The pleasant and useful
fruit that we produce and to which we give birth are nits, fleas, lice and
worms.  These are created by our bodies and in our bodies, and they are
continually born there.  What aromatic spices and useful gums do we produce?
The snot, spittle, and stool that continually exude from the different parts
of our bodies.  Which is why the blessed Bernard says: 'O man, if you stop
to consider all which passes through and spills out of your mouth, nose,
ears, and all the other orifices of your body, you will realize that there
is no dung heap more foul.'"

No wonder St. Ignatius Loyola wrote "I am but a dunghill," (Ignatius of
Loyola, Scripta de sto Ignation, vol 1., p. 379 of the Monumenta historica
societatis Jesu) and the Carthusian monk Ludolph of Saxony went so far as to
state "Man is worse than the devil himself." (Ledolphe de Chartreaux, La
Grand vie de Jesus-Christ, vol 3, p. 79).  The contemptus mundi exerted its
influence well into the eighteenth century, which is attested to by an
eighteenth century hymn titled "Against the World" which contains the
following stanza:  "This body of decay deserves nothing but contempt."

If the body and its desires are so evil, disgusting, nasty, and
reprehensible that it only serves to enhance the "flesh" to the detriment of
the "spirit," then why should we have any concern at all for our physical
health and well-being?  We should ignore it and just focus on the "inner
man" and prepare for heaven by denigrating and denying the "outer body."
Such pessimistic thinking based on pagan neoplatonism is what has been
ingrained within people's thinking for centuries (by the church no less!),
and is why we're where we are at today when something as wonderful and
promising as stem cell research that could relieve much of humanity's
suffering is not quickly embraced, but instead becomes a matter of debate
and controversy.

Luis de Leon wrote "Life is a dangerous voyage, and should be equally
despised.  Since we are born in order to die, and since the ultimate end of
life is death, an early death can only bring an early end to our
suffering...It would have been best to have died at birth, and better still
never to have lived."  (Obras, vol. III, 22 Exposicion de Job, XIV, 2, p.
48).  With such pessimistic thinking of mankind that dominated Western
Christianity from the thirteenth to the eighteenth century, is it any wonder
we're still suffering from it's baleful influence, and being denied
potential cures that are practically there for the embracing, if only those
influenced by neoplatonism would get out of the way!

Ron (Chicago)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn