Christians are surely the last people who should be getting uptight about healing the sick; after all, Jesus was reportedly a bit of a dab hand at it himself.
OK, I've never actually read the Douay-Rheims Bible on which I presume Cardinal Keith O'Brien bases his teachings on. But according to the King James Version that I am familar with, Christ cured dozens of people with ailments ranging from unspecified fever, leprosy, menorrhagia and/or haemophilia, withered limbs, dropsy, deafness, blindness and paralysis. What's more - unlike the average NHS general practitioner - he didn't even have a problem with Saturday call-outs.
All of this makes Christ a tough act to follow. But humanity could be on the verge of doing just that. Thanks to stem cell research, for the first time in 2000 years, it may be possible for those with broken spines once more to walk. Soon doctors might be able to inject insulin-producing cells into diabetics, and treat effectively for the first time multiple sclerosis and motor neurone disease. I mention MS and MND for a reason; the first killed my mother, the second a friend only a couple of years older than I am.
Yet the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church - basing itself on 13th century Thomist natural law theology - is effectively saying that those in the future with the diseases from which my mum and Richard suffered so much for decades before dying lingering and painful deaths should be denied a possible cure.
As things stand, scientists do not have enough fully human stem cells to research on in order to ensure the necessary medical breakthroughs are achieved. That is why they are asking to be allowed to take animal eggs and inject them with DNA. We are talking cells in a test tube here, nothing more grotesque than that.
Yet there are those ostensibly on the left who believe that the very Catholicism that would forbid this qualitative leap offers some kind of 'moral compass' for Britain today; for me, any moral compass that postulates a morally perfect God - and that is an essential tenet of all three major monotheisms - would dictate strong backing for the Embryo Research Bill.
Surely Catholic MPs of all major parties - not least leading figures in a Labour government who purport to be torn on this question - can see that? For the record, I do favour politicians having the right to abstain on legislation on conscience grounds, not least because in the entirely hypothetical event that I ever hold public office, I expect that I would routingly invoke it.
However, I must agree with one leftwing blogger, who points out that few enough 'pro-life' MPs utilised such an obvious get-out when it came to trooping through the lobby in favour of mass slaughter in Iraq.
Never mind liberation theology. The left should be fully in support of what science writer Ronald Bailey has called liberation biology against both bioconservatives and bioluddites.
As his book points out, the biotech revolution promise even those of us who are healthy an additional 20-40 years on their lifespan. Catholics, evangelicals and other such confident believers in an afterlife are perfectly free to turn down such an opportunity.
As I expect to be a long time dead - and given that I am in a final salary pension scheme - I'd jump at that chance. The sooner the boffins do the business - and the picture illustrates them doing just that - the better.
Posted at 11:48, 25 March 2008
Comments (14)
I'm on the left but I was also brought upo as a Catholic although I rarely go to church. So I do understand why some may have reservations about this Bill. And I do think there should be a free vote. I also don't think that socialists should be in the business of pouring scorn on others' religious beliefs because i happen to know quite a lot of practising Catholics who are socialists too.Likewise Christians, Jews or whatever....
"Yet there are those ostensibly on the left who believe that the very Catholicism that would forbid this qualitative leap offers some kind of 'moral compass' for Britain today;....."
Dave, I think you are misreading the SU article you refer to.
Of course catholicism, or any religion offers a 'moral compass', the article does not, however, offer any kind of approval of it.
Susan, we are not disagreeing. I, too, had a religious upbringing and have never poured scorn on people's religious beliefs; I do understand why some Christians may have reservations about the Bill, so I am essentially attempting to put forward a Christian case for backing it; and I do think there should be a free vote.
There should not be a free vote on this Bill. it is a Govt bill and back-benchers should either support it or rebel and take the consequences of that rebellion.
No concessions to medieval obscurantism!
This is the second time within two weeks that Andy Newman has brought his miniscule intellect to bear on religious questions. Last week he was questioning why Creationism isnt taught in state schools, now he wonders why there is an influx of worshippers at the Catholic Church at the bottom of his road, and he blathers on about 'moral compasses'. Yeah, sure, we all need to have asense of morality and to knowd right from wrong, but we don't need old men with long beards (or even clean shaven ones) defining it for us. He totally ignores the role that religion plays in social control, and talks as if it is all hunky-dory. As for the issue of stem cell research. I really don't see why the God-botherers are getting upset. These cells are NOT embryos, they are the cell wall of an animal cell filled with the DNA of a human cell. They could not develop into a viable lifeform, they are just microscopic collections of tissues in a Petrie dish. Even if they could develop into a living creature, what would be so wrong with that anyway (except there are probably good ecological reasons why it would be wrong ie genetically modified crops)?
You forget that corporate-directed won't be looking for cures... The old Chris Rock joke springs to mind - they're looking to develop medicines, not discover cures. I get the wording wrong, but you get the picture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWHiVMNQ_b0
"I expect GG's 'revolutionary socialist' apologists will perform their usual function".
Yes, those vile apologists. I expect they'd say something like "I do understand why some Christians may have reservations about the Bill".
In fairness to Thomas Aquinas (not a phrase I use every day) even he acknowledged that it was a lesser sin to abort before 20-odd weeks because he considered "ensoulment" to happen around that time.
I am surprised at Georges pick n mix Catholicism.
Pope Joan,
Could you inform George that when framing the adultery,theft and bearing false witness rules, I was generally against.
Particularly when all three were done on the same day and in the same postcode.
Is it okay not to have an opinion about this if you don't have a clue what stem cell research is all about ?
Perhaps God can tell us.
God,
I'll try and get your message to George re adultery etc, it's just I've been rather busy trying to convey your somewhat more important reservations re killing to Dave's pals in New Labour. Incidentally, if you ever find your omnipresence skills need updating, there's a guy down here called "tim" who could teach you a thing or two...
Yet again, a scientific debate has been swamped with emotions and become impossible to define or address.
While shopping today, (Monday 31 March), I sneakily read the front page of the Jewish Chronicle in Asda's. The front pagestory was about this very issue, and it seems that the whole of Jewry is united in saying that stem cell research is a good thing. Their argument is that God gave man higher powers to help their fellow-man and to allieviate suffering. They could see no theological objection to it, and distinguished themselves from the Catholic Church on this question. The Catholic argument is that as one cannot be sure when life enters into the homomculus then it should be treated as alive from the inception. Jewish thought does not accept that, believing life only begins when the baby draws its first breath. I suspect that Islamic thought takes the same line as Jewish thinkers, although I have not seen it discussed anywhere.