 |
 |
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. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 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! -----Original Message----- From: Camilla Flintermann [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 10:41 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Mis-impression of advocacy--caution needed Friends--- I've just written a letter to the editor of our local weekly paper, because I was concerned about a column they carried this week . The writer, who happens to be the publisher of the paper, discussed stem cell research, and after mentioning that 10 years ago it might have benefited his son who had kidney problems, he mentioned the "typical people" who oppose it due to "pro-life" beliefs, or support it because they "don't believe an embryo is a life". He then says he opposes it, but does not say why. The main point of his piece was that he heard so many supporters who sounded selfish and self-serving, showing what he describes as "a disturbing lack of thought as to anything other than how it will benefit ME". He goes on to describe them as being "like the four year old with her eyes on the cookie jar, 'way up high, who simply wants a cookie" and has no idea of the consequences of breaking plates as she climbs up to get it. He finishes by saying that little weight should be given to the arguments of such persons whose "primary motivation is the betterment of self." Well, this upset me when I read it, and today I've written this letter. My point in sharing it here is this: We are encouraged to tell our personal stories, and that is good BUT we should also be very sure to include the fact that we are advocating for millions of others, even those yet unborn ! It would never have occurred to me that a reader would have the reaction he did, but he may not be the only one ! Letter to the Editor: To the Editor, The Oxford Press Oxford, OH Dear Sir, When I read Mr. Agliata's column about stem cell research in the August 16th paper, I was troubled, and felt I must respond. I found his comparison of some proponents of the research as self-serving , like "a four year old with her eye on the cookie jar", to be both insensitive and ill-informed. While it is true that in confronting every human dilemma there will always be some who are looking to help only themselves, this is far from true in the current debate about stem cell research. My knowledge of the issue is shaped by reading a very wide variety of medical, editorial, and personal reports on the worldwide email list for persons affected by Parkinsons disease---some 1900 members in 17 countries, and the caregivers of Parkinsonians on the list I run for them--about 400 in 10 countries. My personal "stake" in this research is the knowledge of the lives they lead, and of the struggles for many years of my husband, who died from advanced Parkinson's this past June. I also have a son-in-law who has just lost a leg to diabetes, and a brother-in-law with Alzheimer's. While all of these diseases would potentially be helped or cured through stem cell research, my interest is not on behalf of these family members, all of who are too far advanced to benefit personally from it. The same is true for the majority of the advocates in the Parkinson community, who are expending their often very limited resources and energy to advocate for any promising research---they believe that while they would not benefit personally from it , years down the road, there are many millions of people with a very long list of diseases who would benefit. I can't see this as just "how it will benefit me". Perhaps one thing that confused Mr. Agliata is that we have been told over and over to "personalize" our appeals to Congress and the public, because that will "put a face on the disease". Please do not think that just because someone tells you her/his story, that means the person is making moral decisions selfishly, and therefore discount their appeal as Mr. Agliata urges. To say that their "sole or primary motivation is for the betterment of self" ignores the fact that they are working and speaking for the benefit of generations to come, and may never see any personal relief of their suffering. While I suspect this is an argument he chose to prevent arguing on pro-life grounds, it seems a warning to be careful that we present our personal stories in a wider context. Camilla Flintermann <[log in to unmask]> on the web at http://www.geocities.com/camillahf/index.html **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** "... Meet people where they are now, not where you hoped they might be........" --Christine Greenland **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn