Frothing at the mouth

not literally, but figuratively.

I'm writing this last big paper on "Addiction: Disease or Moral Failure?" for TS502, and finding myself getting more and more upset as I write it, ranting against this or that organization or denomination or movement (or .. school! Yikes! puts one's grade in jeopardy to criticize the institution responsible for grading you..)

And the hardest part is, I'm not sure that I really believe everything that I'm getting all riled up about. Maybe I'm emotionally too close to the topic. My brother and I are shot all through the pages so far. :(

I have the thesis written, as well as the summary of my findings, and my personal reflections on the topic. I've only just begun summarizing the research material. But the thesis/findings/reflections are so emotionally powerful to me that I'm afraid I can't be very objective about the topic.

Ran the above material by my in-house editor and critic, and.. she, um.. expressed caution. ;) With good reason, I think.

Here's the thesis. It's the calmest part of the paper so far.

*****

The medical community has viewed addiction (specifically alcoholism) as a disease for several decades. With the advent of the Human Genome Project, considerable research has been done on the impact of genetics on the likelihood of contracting various diseases. In this paper I will argue that the theological community is far behind the scientific community in recognizing the existence of a biological component (indeed, a substantial one) of what has traditionally been seen as a sin problem alone, albeit perhaps aggravated somewhat (but not excused) by environmental factors.

I will also argue that, in the realm of diseases not normally associated with moral failure (ex’s: cancer, heart disease, diabetes), the theological community has not recognized the moral aspects of lifestyle choices that may hasten the onset and hinder the management of those diseases. I will also show that there is, in fact, very little difference between alcoholism and diabetes when it comes to their biological (incl. genetic), environmental and moral aspects. As such, the Church should not view or treat those who suffer from these conditions any differently, but rather support both without stigma or shame.

*****

I think going out the next couple of nights will be good to give me a bit of distance from the subject before I pick it up again Saturday. Maybe I'll calm down by then.