EVANGELIUM VITAE
(The Gospel of
Life)
Pope John Paul II
ENCYCLICAL
LETTER
EVANGELIUM
VITAE
ADDRESSED BY THE SUPREME
PONTIFF
POPE JOHN PAUL
II
TO ALL
THE BISHOPS, PRIESTS, AND
DEACONS
MEN AND WOMEN
RELIGIOUS
LAY
FAITHFUL
AND ALL PEOPLE OF GOOD
WILL
ON
THE VALUE AND
INVIOLABILITY
OF HUMAN
LIFE
INDEX
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER I
- THE VOICE OF YOUR BROTHER'S BLOOD CRIES TO ME
FROM THE GROUND
CHAPTER
II - I CAME THAT THEY MAY HAVE
LIFE
CHAPTER III - YOU SHALL NOT
KILL
CHAPTER IV - YOU DID IT TO
ME
CONCLUSION
ENDNOTES
INTRODUCTION
1. THE GOSPEL OF LIFE is at the heart of Jesus' message. Lovingly
received
day after day by the Church, it is to be preached with
dauntless
fidelity as "good news" to the people of every age and
culture.
At the dawn of salvation, it is the Birth of a Child which is
proclaimed as joyful news: "I bring you good news of a great joy
which
will come to all the people; for to you is born this day in
the city
of David a Saviour, who is. Christ the Lord" (Lk 2:10-11).
The
source of this "great joy" is the Birth of the Saviour; but
Christmas
also reveals the full meaning of every human birth, and
the joy
which accompanies the Birth of the Messiah is thus seen to
be the
foundation and fulfilment of joy at every child born into the
world
(cf. Jn 16:21).
When he presents the heart of his redemptive mission, Jesus says: "I
came that
they may have life, and have it abundantly" (Jn 10:10). In
truth, he
is referring to that "new" and "eternal" life which
consists
in communion with the Father, to which every person is
freely
called in the Son by the power of the Sanctifying Spirit. It
is
precisely in this "life" that all the aspects and stages of human
life
achieve their full significance.
The
incomparable worth of the human person
2. Man is
called to a fullness of life which far exceeds the
dimensions of his earthly existence, because it consists in sharing
the very
life of God. The loftiness of this supernatural vocation
reveals
the greatness and the inestimable value of human life even
in its
temporal phase. Life in time, in fact, is the fundamental
condition, the initial stage and an integral part of the entire
unified
process of human existence. It is a process which,
unexpectedly and undeservedly, is enlightened by the promise and
renewed
by the gift of divine life, which will reach its full
realization in eternity (cf. 1 Jn 3:1-2). At the same time, it is
precisely
this supernatural calling which highlights the relative
character
of each individual's earthly life. After all, life on
earth is
not an "ultimate" but a "penultimate" reality; even so, it
remains a
sacred reality entrusted to us, to be preserved with a
sense of
responsibility and brought to perfection in love and in the
gift of
ourselves to God and to our brothers and sisters.
The
Church knows that this Gospel of life, which she has received
from her
Lord,1 has a profound and persuasive echo in the heart of
every
person—believer and non-believer alike—because it marvellously
fulfils
all the heart's expectations while infinitely surpassing
them.
Even in the midst of difficulties and uncertainties, every
person
sincerely open to truth and goodness can, by the light of
reason
and the hidden action of grace, come to recognize in the
natural
law written in the heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15) the sacred value
of human
life from its very beginning until its end, and can affirm
the right
of every human being to have this primary good respected
to the
highest degree. Upon the recognition of this right, every
human
community and the political community itself are founded.
In a
special way, believers in Christ must defend and promote this
right,
aware as they are of the wonderful truth recalled by the
Second
Vatican Council: "By his incarnation the Son of God has
united
himself in some fashion with every human being".2 This saving
event
reveals to humanity not only the boundless love of God who "so
loved the
world that he gave his only Son" (Jn 3:16), but also the
incomparable value of every human person.
The
Church, faithfully contemplating the mystery of the Redemption,
acknowledges this value with ever new wonder.3 She feels called to
proclaim
to the people of all times this "Gospel", the source of
invincible hope and true joy for every period of history. The Gospel
of God's
love for man, the Gospel of the dignity of the person and
the
Gospel of life are a single and indivisible Gospel.
For this
reason, man—living man—represents the primary and
fundamental way for the Church.4
New
threats to human life
3. Every
individual, precisely by reason of the mystery of the Word
of God
who was made flesh (cf. Jn 1:14), is entrusted to the
maternal
care of the Church. Therefore every threat to human dignity
and life
must necessarily be felt in the Church's very heart; it
cannot
but affect her at the core of her faith in the Redemptive
Incarnation of the Son of God, and engage her in her mission of
proclaiming the Gospel of life in all the world and to every
creature
(cf. Mk 16:15).
Today
this proclamation is especially pressing because of the
extraordinary increase and gravity of threats to the life of
individuals and peoples, especially where life is weak and
defenceless. In addition to the ancient scourges of poverty, hunger,
endemic
diseases, violence and war, new threats are emerging on an
alarmingly vast scale.
The
Second Vatican Council, in a passage which retains all its
relevance
today, forcefully condemned a number of crimes and attacks
against
human life. Thirty years later, taking up the words of the
Council
and with the same forcefulness I repeat that condemnation in
the name
of the whole Church, certain that I am interpreting the
genuine
sentiment of every upright conscience: "Whatever is opposed
to life
itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion,
euthanasia, or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the
integrity
of the human person, such as mutilation, torments
inflicted
on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself;
whatever
insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions,
arbitrary
imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the
selling
of women and children; as well as disgraceful working
conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain
rather
than as free and responsible persons; all these things and
others
like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and
they do
more harm to those who practise them than to those who
suffer
from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to
the
Creator".5
4.
Unfortunately, this disturbing state of affairs, far from
decreasing, is expanding: with the new prospects opened up by
scientific and technological progress there arise new forms of
attacks
on the dignity of the human being. At the same time a new
cultural
climate is developing and taking hold, which gives crimes
against
life a new and—if possible—even more sinister character,
giving
rise to further grave concern: broad sectors of public
opinion
justify certain crimes against life in the name of the
rights of
individual freedom, and on this basis they claim not only
exemption
from punishment but even authorization by the State, so
that
these things can be done with total freedom and indeed with the
free
assistance of health-care systems.
All this
is causing a profound change in the way in which life and
relationships between people are considered. The fact that
legislation in many countries, perhaps even departing from basic
principles of their Constitutions, has determined not to punish
these
practices against life, and even to make them altogether
legal, is
both a disturbing symptom and a significant cause of grave
moral
decline. Choices once unanimously considered criminal and
rejected
by the common moral sense are gradually becoming socially
acceptable. Even certain sectors of the medical profession, which by
its
calling is directed to the defence and care of human life, are
increasingly willing to carry out these acts against the person. In
this way
the very nature of the medical profession is distorted and
contradicted, and the dignity of those who practise it is degraded.
In such a
cultural and legislative situation, the serious
demographic, social and family problems which weigh upon many of the
world's
peoples and which require responsible and effective
attention
from national and international bodies, are left open to
false and
deceptive solutions, opposed to the truth and the good of
persons
and nations.
The end
result of this is tragic: not only is the fact of the
destruction of so many human lives still to be born or in their
final
stage extremely grave and disturbing, but no less grave and
disturbing is the fact that conscience itself, darkened as it were
by such
widespread conditioning, is finding it increasingly
difficult
to distinguish between good and evil in what concerns the
basic
value of human life.
In
communion with all the Bishops of the world
5. The
Extraordinary Consistory of Cardinals held in Rome on 4-7
April
1991 was devoted to the problem of the threats to human life
in our
day. After a thorough and detailed discussion of the problem
and of
the challenges it poses to the entire human family and in
particular to the Christian community, the Cardinals unanimously
asked me
to reaffirm with the authority of the Successor of Peter
the value
of human life and its inviolability, in the light of
present
circumstances and attacks threatening it today.
In
response to this request, at Pentecost in 1991 I wrote a personal
letter to
each of my Brother Bishops asking them, in the spirit of
episcopal
collegiality, to offer me their cooperation in drawing up
a
specific document.6 I am deeply grateful to all the Bishops who
replied
and provided me with valuable facts, suggestions and
proposals. In so doing they bore witness to their unanimous desire
to share
in the doctrinal and pastoral mission of the Church with
regard to
the Gospel of life.
In that
same letter, written shortly after the celebration of the
centenary
of the Encyclical Rerum Novarum, I drew everyone's
attention
to this striking analogy: "Just as a century ago it was
the
working classes which were oppressed in their fundamental
rights,
and the Church very courageously came to their defence by
proclaiming the sacrosanct rights of the worker as a person, so now,
when
another category of persons is being oppressed in the
fundamental right to life, the Church feels in duty bound to speak
out with
the same courage on behalf of those who have no voice. Hers
is always
the evangelical cry in defence of the world's poor, those
who are
threatened and despised and whose human rights are
violated".7
Today
there exists a great multitude of weak and defenceless human
beings,
unborn children in particular, whose fundamental right to
life is
being trampled upon. If, at the end of the last century, the
Church
could not be silent about the injustices of those times,
still
less can she be silent today, when the social injustices of
the past,
unfortunately not yet overcome, are being compounded in
many
regions of the world by still more grievous forms of injustice
and
oppression, even if these are being presented as elements of
progress
in view of a new world order.
The
present Encyclical, the fruit of the cooperation of the
Episcopate of every country of the world, is therefore meant to be a
precise
and vigorous reaffirmation of the value of human life and
its
inviolability, and at the same time a pressing appeal addressed
to each
and every person, in the name of God: respect, protect, love
and serve
life, every human life! Only in this direction will you
find
justice, development, true freedom, peace and happiness!
May these
words reach all the sons and daughters of the Church! May
they
reach all people of good will who are concerned for the good of
every man
and woman and for the destiny of the whole of society!
6. In
profound communion with all my brothers and sisters in the
faith,
and inspired by genuine friendship towards all, I wish to
meditate
upon once more and proclaim the Gospel of life, the
splendour
of truth which enlightens consciences, the clear light
which
corrects the darkened gaze, and the unfailing source of
faithfulness and steadfastness in facing the ever new challenges
which we
meet along our path.
As I
recall the powerful experience of the Year of the Family, as if
to
complete the Letter which I wrote "to every particular family in
every
part of the world",8 I look with renewed confidence to every
household
and I pray that at every level a general commitment to
support
the family will reappear and be strengthened, so that today
too—even
amid so many difficulties and serious threats—the family
will
always remain, in accordance with God's plan, the "sanctuary of
life".9
To all
the members of the Church, the people of life and for life, I
make this
most urgent appeal, that together we may offer this world
of ours
new signs of hope, and work to ensure that justice and
solidarity will increase and that a new culture of human life will
be
affirmed, for the building of an authentic civilization of truth
and
love.
Index
CHAPTER I
THE VOICE OF YOUR BROTHER'S BLOOD CRIES TO ME FROM THE
GROUND
Present-day threats to human
life
"Cain
rose up against his brother Abel, and killed him" (Gen
4:8):
the
roots of violence against life
7. "God
did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of
the
living. For he has created all things that they might
exist...God created man for incorruption, and made him in the image
of his
own eternity, but through the devil's envy death entered the
world,
and those who belong to his party experience it" (Wis
1:13-14;
2:23-24).
The Gospel of life, proclaimed in the beginning when man was created
in the
image of God for a destiny of full and perfect life (cf. Gen
2:7; Wis
9:2-3), is contradicted by the painful experience of death
which
enters the world and casts its shadow of meaninglessness over
man's
entire existence. Death came into the world as a result of the
devil's
envy (cf. Gen 3:1,4-5) and the sin of our first parents (cf.
Gen 2:17,
3:17-19). And death entered it in a violent way, through
the
killing of Abel by his brother Cain: "And when they were in the
field,
Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and killed him" (Gen
4:8).
This
first murder is presented with singular eloquence in a page of
the Book
of Genesis which has universal significance: it is a page
rewritten
daily, with inexorable and degrading frequency, in the
book of
human history.
Let us
re-read together this biblical account which, despite its
archaic
structure and its extreme simplicity, has much to teach us.
"Now Abel
was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a tiller of the ground. In
the
course of time Cain brought to the Lord an offering of the fruit
of the
ground, and Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock and
of their
fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and his
offering,
but for Cain and his offering he had not regard. So Cain
was very
angry, and his countenance fell. The Lord said to Cain,
'Why are
you angry and why has your countenance fallen? If you do
well,
will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is
crouching
at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master
it'.
"Cain
said to Abel his brother, 'Let us go out to the field'. And
when they
were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel,
and
killed him. Then the Lord said to Cain, 'Where is Abel your
brother?'
He said, I do not know; am I my brother's keeper?' And the
Lord
said, 'What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is
crying to
me from the ground. And now you are cursed from the
ground,
which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood
from your
hand. When you till the ground, it shall no longer yield
to you
its strength; you shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the
earth'.
Cain said to the Lord, 'My punishment is greater than I can
bear.
Behold, you have driven me this day away from the ground; and
from your
face I shall be hidden; and I shall be a fugitive and a
wanderer
on the earth, and whoever finds me will slay me'. Then the
Lord said
to him, 'Not so! If any one slays Cain, vengeance shall be
taken on
him sevenfold'. And the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest any
who came
upon him should kill him. Then Cain went away from the
presence
of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, east of Eden"
(Gen
4:2-16).
8. Cain was "very angry" and his countenance "fell" because "the
Lord had
regard for Abel and his offering" (Gen 4:4-5). The biblical
text does
not reveal the reason why God prefers Abel's sacrifice to
Cain's.
It clearly shows however that God, although preferring
Abel's
gift, does not interrupt his dialogue with Cain. He
admonishes him, reminding him of his freedom in the face of evil:
man is in
no way predestined to evil. Certainly, like Adam, he is
tempted
by the malevolent force of sin which, like a wild beast,
lies in
wait at the door of his heart, ready to leap on its prey.
But Cain
remains free in the face of sin. He can and must overcome
it: "Its
desire is for you, but you must master it" (Gen 4:7).
Envy and
anger have the upper hand over the Lord's warning, and so
Cain
attacks his own brother and kills him. As we read in the
Catechism
of the Catholic Church: "In the account of Abel's murder
by his
brother Cain, Scripture reveals the presence of anger and
envy in
man, consequences of original sin, from the beginning of
human
history. Man has become the enemy of his fellow man"10
Brother
kills brother. Like the first fratricide, every murder is a
violation
of the "spiritual" kinship uniting mankind in one great
family,11
in which all share the same fundamental good: equal
personal
dignity. Not infrequently the kinship "of flesh and blood"
is also
violated; for example when threats to life arise within the
relationship between parents and children, such as happens in
abortion
or when, in the wider context of family or kinship,
euthanasia is encouraged or practised.
At the
root of every act of violence against one's neighbour there
is a
concession to the "thinking" of the evil one, the one who "was
a
murderer from the beginning" (Jn 8:44). As the Apostle John
reminds
us: "For this is the message which you have heard from the
beginning, that we should love one another, and not be like Cain who
was of
the evil one and murdered his brother" (1 Jn 3:11-12). Cain's
killing
of his brother at the very dawn of history is thus a sad
witness
of how evil spreads with amazing speed: man's revolt against
God in
the earthly paradise is followed by the deadly combat of man
against
man.
After the crime, God intervenes to avenge the one killed. Before
God, who
asks him about the fate of Abel, Cain, instead of showing
remorse
and apologizing, arrogantly eludes the question: "I do not
know; am
I my brother's keeper?" (Gen 4:9). "I do not know": Cain
tries to
cover up his crime with a lie. This was and still is the
case,
when all kinds of ideologies try to justify and disguise the
most
atrocious crimes against human beings. "Am I my brother's
keeper?":
Cain does not wish to think about his brother and refuses
to accept
the responsibility which every person has towards others.
We cannot
but think of today's tendency for people to refuse to
accept
responsibility for their brothers and sisters. Symptoms of
this
trend include the lack of solidarity towards society's weakest
members—such as the elderly, the infirm, immigrants, children—and
the
indifference frequently found in relations between the world's
peoples
even when basic values such as survival, freedom and peace
are
involved.
9. But God cannot leave the crime unpunished: from the ground on
which it
has been spilt, the blood of the one murdered demands that
God
should render justice (cf. Gen 37:26; Is 26:21; Ez 24:7-8). From
this text
the Church has taken the name of the "sins which cry to
God for
justice", and, first among them, she has included wilful
murder.12
For the Jewish people, as for many peoples of antiquity,
blood is
the source of life. Indeed "the blood is the life" (Dt
12:23),
and life, especially human life, belongs only to God: for
this
reason whoever attacks human life, in some way attacks God
himself.
Cain is
cursed by God and also by the earth, which will deny him its
fruit
(cf. Gen 4: 12). He is punished: he will live in the
wilderness and the desert. Murderous violence profoundly changes
man's
environment. From being the "garden of Eden" (Gen 2:15), a
place of
plenty, of harmonious interpersonal relationships and of
friendship with God, the earth becomes "the land of Nod" (Gen 4:16),
a place
of scarcity, loneliness and separation from God. Cain will
be "a
fugitive and a wanderer on the earth" (Gen 4:14): uncertainty
and
restlessness will follow him forever.
And yet
God, who is always merciful even when he punishes, "put a
mark on
Cain, lest any who came upon him should kill him" (Gen
4:15). He
thus gave him a distinctive sign, not to condemn him to
the
hatred of others, but to protect and defend him from those
wishing
to kill him, even out of a desire to avenge Abel's death.
Not even
a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself
pledges
to guarantee this. And it is precisely here that the
paradoxical mystery of the merciful justice of God is shown forth.
As Saint
Ambrose writes: "Once the crime is admitted at the very
inception
of this sinful act of parricide, then the divine law of
God's
mercy should be immediately extended. If punishment is
forthwith
inflicted on the accused, then men in the exercise of
justice
would in no way observe patience and moderation, but would
straightaway condemn the defendant to punishment.... God drove Cain
out of
his presence and sent him into exile far away from his native
land, so
that he passed from a life of human kindness to one which
was more
akin to the rude existence of a wild beast. God, who
preferred
the correction rather than the death of a sinner, did not
desire
that a homicide be punished by the exaction of another act of
homicide".13
"What
have you done?" (Gen 4:10): the eclipse of the value of life
10. The
Lord said to Cain: "What have you done? The voice of your
brother's
blood is crying to me from the ground" (Gen 4:10). The
voice of
the blood shed by men continues to cry out, from generation
to
generation, in ever new and different ways.
The
Lord's question: "What have you done?", which Cain cannot
escape,
is addressed also to the people of today, to make them
realize
the extent and gravity of the attacks against life which
continue
to mark human history; to make them discover what causes
these
attacks and feeds them; and to make them ponder seriously the
consequences which derive from these attacks for the existence of
individuals and peoples.
Some
threats come from nature itself, but they are made worse by the
culpable
indifference and negligence of those who could in some
cases
remedy them. Others are the result of situations of violence,
hatred
and conflicting interests, which lead people to attack others
through
murder, war, slaughter and genocide.
And how
can we fail to consider the violence against life done to
millions
of human beings, especially children, who are forced into
poverty,
malnutrition and hunger because of an unjust distribution
of
resources between peoples and between social classes? And what of
the
violence inherent not only in wars as such but in the scandalous
arms
trade, which spawns the many armed conflicts which stain our
world
with blood? What of the spreading of death caused by reckless
tampering
with the world's ecological balance, by the criminal
spread of
drugs, or by the promotion of certain kinds of sexual
activity
which, besides being morally unacceptable, also involve
grave
risks to life? It is impossible to catalogue completely the
vast
array of threats to human life, so many are the forms, whether
explicit
or hidden, in which they appear today!
11. Here
though we shall concentrate particular attention on another
category
of attacks, affecting life in its earliest and in its final
stages,
attacks which present new characteristics with respect to
the past
and which raise questions of extraordinary seriousness. It
is not
only that in generalized opinion these attacks tend no longer
to be
considered as "crimes"; paradoxically they assume the nature
of
"rights", to the point that the State is called upon to give them
legal
recognition and to make them available through the free
services
of health-care personnel. Such attacks strike human life at
the time
of its greatest frailty, when it lacks any means of
self-defence. Even more serious is the fact that, most often, those
attacks
are carried out in the very heart of and with the complicity
of the
family—the family which by its nature is called to be the
"sanctuary of life".
How did
such a situation come about? Many different factors have to
be taken
into account. In the background there is the profound
crisis of
culture, which generates scepticism in relation to the
very
foundations of knowledge and ethics, and which makes it
increasingly difficult to grasp clearly the meaning of what man is,
the
meaning of his rights and his duties. Then there are all kinds
of
existential and interpersonal difficulties, made worse by the
complexity of a society in which individuals, couples and families
are often
left alone with their problems. There are situations of
acute
poverty, anxiety or frustration in which the struggle to make
ends
meet, the presence of unbearable pain, or instances of
violence,
especially against women, make the choice to defend and
promote
life so demanding as sometimes to reach the point of
heroism.
All this
explains, at least in part, how the value of life can today
undergo a
kind of "eclipse", even though conscience does not cease
to point
to it as a sacred and inviolable value, as is evident in
the
tendency to disguise certain crimes against life in its early or
final
stages by using innocuous medical terms which distract
attention
from the fact that what is involved is the right to life
of an
actual human person.
12. In
fact, while the climate of widespread moral uncertainty can
in some
way be explained by the multiplicity and gravity of today's
social
problems, and these can sometimes mitigate the subjective
responsibility of individuals, it is no less true that we are
confronted by an even larger reality, which can be described as a
<veritable structure of sin>. This reality is characterized by the
emergence
of a culture which denies solidarity and in many cases
takes the
form of a veritable "culture of death". This culture is
actively
fostered by powerful cultural, economic and political
currents
which encourage an idea of society excessively concerned
with
efficiency. Looking at the situation from this point of view,
it is
possible to speak in a certain sense of a war of the powerful
against
the weak: a life which would require greater acceptance,
love and
care is considered useless, or held to be an intolerable
burden,
and is therefore rejected in one way or another. A person
who,
because of illness, handicap or, more simply, just by existing,
compromises the well-being or life-style of those who are more
favoured
tends to be looked upon as an enemy to be resisted or
eliminated. In this way a kind of "conspiracy against life" is
unleashed. This conspiracy involves not only individuals in their
personal,
family or group relationships, but goes far beyond, to the
point of
damaging and distorting, at the international level,
relations
between peoples and States.
13. In
order to facilitate the spread of abortion, enormous sums of
money
have been invested and continue to be invested in the
production of pharmaceutical products which make it possible to kill
the fetus
in the mother's womb without recourse to medical
assistance. On this point, scientific research itself seems to be
almost
exclusively preoccupied with developing products which are
ever more
simple and effective in suppressing life and which at the
same time
are capable of removing abortion from any kind of control
or social
responsibility.
It is
frequently asserted that contraception, if made safe and
available
to all, is the most effective remedy against abortion. The
Catholic
Church is then accused of actually promoting abortion,
because
she obstinately continues to teach the moral unlawfulness of
contraception. When looked at carefully, this objection is clearly
unfounded. It may be that many people use contraception with a view
to
excluding the subsequent temptation of abortion. But the negative
values
inherent in the "contraceptive mentality"—which is very
different
from responsible parenthood, lived in respect for the full
truth of
the conjugal act—are such that they in fact strengthen this
temptation when an unwanted life is conceived. Indeed, the
pro-abortion culture is especially strong precisely where the
Church's
teaching on contraception is rejected. Certainly, from the
moral
point of view contraception and abortion are specifically
different
evils: the former contradicts the full truth of the sexual
act as
the proper expression of conjugal love, while the latter
destroys
the life of a human being; the former is opposed to the
virtue of
chastity in marriage, the latter is opposed to the virtue
of
justice and directly violates the divine commandment "You shall
not
kill".
But despite their differences of nature and moral gravity,
contraception and abortion are often closely connected, as fruits of
the same
tree. It is true that in many cases contraception and even
abortion
are practised under the pressure of real-life difficulties,
which
nonetheless can never exonerate from striving to observe God's
law
fully. Still, in very many other instances such practices are
rooted in
a hedonistic mentality unwilling to accept responsibility
in
matters of sexuality, and they imply a self-centered concept of
freedom,
which regards procreation as an obstacle to personal
fulfilment. The life which could result from a sexual encounter thus
becomes
an enemy to be avoided at all costs, and abortion becomes
the only
possible decisive response to failed contraception.
The close
connection which exists, in mentality, between the
practice
of contraception and that of abortion is becoming
increasingly obvious. It is being demonstrated in an alarming way by
the
development of chemical products, intrauterine devices and
vaccines
which, distributed with the same ease as contraceptives,
really
act as abortifacients in the very early stages of the
development of the life of the new human being.
14. The
various techniques of artificial reproduction, which would
seem to
be at the service of life and which are frequently used with
this
intention, actually open the door to new threats against life.
Apart
from the fact that they are morally unacceptable, since they
separate
procreation from the fully human context of the conjugal
act,14
these techniques have a high rate of failure: not just
failure
in relation to fertilization but with regard to the
subsequent development of the embryo, which is exposed to the risk
of death,
generally within a very short space of time. Furthermore,
the
number of embryos produced is often greater than that needed for
implantation in the woman's womb, and these so-called "spare
embryos"
are then destroyed or used for research which, under the
pretext
of scientific or medical progress, in fact reduces human
life to
the level of simple "biological material" to be freely
disposed
of.
Prenatal diagnosis, which presents no moral objections if carried
out in
order to identify the medical treatment which may be needed
by the
child in the womb, all too often becomes an opportunity for
proposing
and procuring an abortion. This is eugenic abortion,
justified
in public opinion on the basis of a mentality—mistakenly
held to
be consistent with the demands of "therapeutic
interventions"—which accepts life only under certain conditions and
rejects
it when it is affected by any limitation, handicap or
illness.
Following
this same logic, the point has been reached where the most
basic
care, even nourishment, is denied to babies born with serious
handicaps
or illnesses. The contemporary scene, moreover, is
becoming
even more alarming by reason of the proposals, advanced
here and
there, to justify even infanticide, following the same
arguments
used to justify the right to abortion. In this way, we
revert to
a state of barbarism which one hoped had been left behind
forever.
15.
Threats which are no less serious hang over the incurably ill
and the
dying. In a social and cultural context which makes it more
difficult
to face and accept suffering, the temptation becomes all
the
greater to resolve the problem of suffering by eliminating it at
the root,
by hastening death so that it occurs at the moment
considered most suitable.
Various
considerations usually contribute to such a decision, all of
which
converge in the same terrible outcome. In the sick person the
sense of
anguish, of severe discomfort, and even of desperation
brought
on by intense and prolonged suffering can be a decisive
factor.
Such a situation can threaten the already fragile
equilibrium of an individual's personal and family life, with the
result
that, on the one hand, the sick person, despite the help of
increasingly effective medical and social assistance, risks feeling
overwhelmed by his or her own frailty; and on the other hand, those
close to
the sick person can be moved by an understandable even if
misplaced
compassion. All this is aggravated by a cultural climate
which
fails to perceive any meaning or value in suffering, but
rather
considers suffering the epitome of evil, to be eliminated at
all
costs. This is especially the case in the absence of a religious
outlook
which could help to provide a positive understanding of the
mystery
of suffering.
On a more
general level, there exists in contemporary culture a
certain
Promethean attitude which leads people to think that they
can
control life and death by taking the decisions about them into
their own
hands. What really happens in this case is that the
individual is overcome and crushed by a death deprived of any
prospect
of meaning or hope. We see a tragic expression of all this
in the
spread of euthanasia—disguised and surreptitious, or
practised
openly and even legally. As well as for reasons of a
misguided
pity at the sight of the patient's suffering, euthanasia
is
sometimes justified by the utilitarian motive of avoiding costs
which
bring no return and which weigh heavily on society. Thus it is
proposed
to eliminate malformed babies, the severely handicapped,
the
disabled, the elderly, especially when they are not
self-sufficient, and the terminally ill. Nor can we remain silent in
the face
of other more furtive, but no less serious and real, forms
of
euthanasia. These could occur for example when, in order to
increase
the availability of organs for transplants, organs are
removed
without respecting objective and adequate criteria which
verify
the death of the donor.
16.
Another present-day phenomenon, frequently used to justify
threats
and attacks against life, is the demographic question. This
question
arises in different ways in different parts of the world.
In the
rich and developed countries there is a disturbing decline or
collapse
of the birthrate. The poorer countries, on the other hand,
generally
have a high rate of population growth, difficult to
sustain
in the context of low economic and social development, and
especially where there is extreme underdevelopment. In the face of
overpopulation in the poorer countries, instead of forms of global
intervention at the international level—serious family and social
policies,
programmes of cultural development and of fair production
and
distribution of resources—anti-birth policies continue to be
enacted.
Contraception, sterilization and abortion are certainly part of the
reason
why in some cases there is a sharp decline in the birthrate.
It is not
difficult to be tempted to use the same methods and
attacks
against life also where there is a situation of "demographic
explosion".
The
Pharaoh of old, haunted by the presence and increase of the
children
of Israel, submitted them to every kind of oppression and
ordered
that every male child born of the Hebrew women was to be
killed
(cf. Ex 1:7-22). Today not a few of the powerful of the earth
act in
the same way. They too are haunted by the current demographic
growth,
and fear that the most prolific and poorest peoples
represent
a threat for the well-being and peace of their own
countries. Consequently, rather than wishing to face and solve these
serious
problems with respect for the dignity of individuals and
families
and for every person's inviolable right to life, they
prefer to
promote and impose by whatever means a massive programme
of birth
control. Even the economic help which they would be ready
to give
is unjustly made conditional on the acceptance of an
anti-birth policy.
17.
Humanity today offers us a truly alarming spectacle, if we
consider
not only how extensively attacks on life are spreading but
also
their unheard-of numerical proportion, and the fact that they
receive
widespread and powerful support from a broad consensus on
the part
of society, from widespread legal approval and the
involvement of certain sectors of health-care personnel.
As I
emphatically stated at Denver, on the occasion of the Eighth
World
Youth Day, "with time the threats against life have not grown
weaker.
They are taking on vast proportions. They are not only
threats
coming from the outside, from the forces of nature or the
'Cains'
who kill the 'Abels'; no, they are scientifically and
systematically programmed threats. The twentieth century will have
been an
era of massive attacks on life, an endless series of wars
and a
continual taking of innocent human life. False prophets and
false
teachers have had the greatest success".15 Aside from
intentions, which can be varied and perhaps can seem convincing at
times,
especially if presented in the name of solidarity, we are in
fact
faced by an objective "conspiracy against life", involving even
international Institutions, engaged in encouraging and carrying out
actual
campaigns to make contraception, sterilization and abortion
widely
available. Nor can it be denied that the mass media are often
implicated in this conspiracy, by lending credit to that culture
which
presents recourse to contraception, sterilization, abortion
and even
euthanasia as a mark of progress and a victory of freedom,
while
depicting as enemies of freedom and progress those positions
which are
unreservedly pro-life.
"Am I my
brother's keeper?" (Gen 4:9): a perverse idea of freedom
18. The
panorama described needs to be understood not only in terms
of the
phenomena of death which characterize it but also in the
variety
of causes which determine it. The Lord's question: "What
have you
done?" (Gen 4:10), seems almost like an invitation
addressed
to Cain to go beyond the material dimension of his
murderous
gesture, in order to recognize in it all the gravity of
the
motives which occasioned it and the consequences which result
from it.
Decisions
that go against life sometimes arise from difficult or
even
tragic situations of profound suffering, loneliness, a total
lack of
economic prospects, depression and anxiety about the future.
Such
circumstances can mitigate even to a notable degree subjective
responsibility and the consequent culpability of those who make
these
choices which in themselves are evil. But today the problem
goes far
beyond the necessary recognition of these personal
situations. It is a problem which exists at the cultural, social and
political
level, where it reveals its more sinister and disturbing
aspect in
the tendency, ever more widely shared, to interpret the
above
crimes against life as legitimate expressions of individual
freedom,
to be acknowledged and protected as actual rights.
In this
way, and with tragic consequences, a long historical process
is
reaching a turning-point. The process which once led to
discovering the idea of "human rights"— rights inherent in every
person
and prior to any Constitution and State legislation—is today
marked by
a surprising contradiction. Precisely in an age when the
inviolable rights of the person are solemnly proclaimed and the
value of
life is publicly affirmed, the very right to life is being
denied or
trampled upon, especially at the more significant moments
of
existence: the moment of birth and the moment of death.
On the
one hand, the various declarations of human rights and the
many
initiatives inspired by these declarations show that at the
global
level there is a growing moral sensitivity, more alert to
acknowledging the value and dignity of every individual as a human
being,
without any distinction of race, nationality, religion,
political
opinion or social class.
On the
other hand, these noble proclamations are unfortunately
contradicted by a tragic repudiation of them in practice. This
denial is
still more distressing, indeed more scandalous, precisely
because
it is occurring in a society which makes the affirmation and
protection of human rights its primary objective and its boast. How
can these
repeated affirmations of principle be reconciled with the
continual
increase and widespread justification of attacks on human
life? How
can we reconcile these declarations with the refusal to
accept
those who are weak and needy, or elderly, or those who have
just been
conceived? These attacks go directly against respect for
life and
they represent a direct threat to the entire culture of
human
rights. It is a threat capable, in the end, of jeopardizing
the very
meaning of democratic coexistence: rather than societies of
"people
living together", our cities risk becoming societies of
people
who are rejected, marginalized, uprooted and oppressed. If we
then look
at the wider worldwide perspective, how can we fail to
think
that the very affirmation of the rights of individuals and
peoples
made in distinguished international assemblies is a merely
futile
exercise of rhetoric, if we fail to unmask the selfishness of
the rich
countries which exclude poorer countries from access to
development or make such access dependent on arbitrary prohibitions
against
procreation, setting up an opposition between development
and man
himself? Should we not question the very economic models
often
adopted by States which, also as a result of international
pressures
and forms of conditioning, cause and aggravate situations
of
injustice and violence in which the life of whole peoples is
degraded
and trampled upon?
19. What
are the roots of this remarkable contradiction?
We can
find them in an overall assessment of a cultural and moral
nature,
beginning with the mentality which carries the concept of
subjectivity to an extreme and even distorts it, and recognizes as a
subject
of rights only the person who enjoys full or at least
incipient
autonomy and who emerges from a state of total dependence
on
others. But how can we reconcile this approach with the
exaltation of man as a being who is "not to be used"? The theory of
human
rights is based precisely on the affirmation that the human
person,
unlike animals and things, cannot be subjected to domination
by
others. We must also mention the mentality which tends to equate
personal
dignity with the capacity for verbal and explicit, or at
least
perceptible, communication. It is clear that on the basis of
these
presuppositions there is no place in the world for anyone who,
like the
unborn or the dying, is a weak element in the social
structure, or for anyone who appears completely at the mercy of
others
and radically dependent on them, and can only communicate
through
the silent language of a profound sharing of affection. In
this case
it is force which becomes the criterion for choice and
action in
interpersonal relations and in social life. But this is
the exact
opposite of what a State ruled by law, as a community in
which the
"reasons of force" are replaced by the "force of reason",
historically intended to affirm.
At
another level, the roots of the contradiction between the solemn
affirmation of human rights and their tragic denial in practice lies
in a
notion of freedom which exalts the isolated individual in an
absolute
way, and gives no place to solidarity, to openness to
others
and service of them. While it is true that the taking of life
not yet
born or in its final stages is sometimes marked by a
mistaken
sense of altruism and human compassion, it cannot be denied
that such
a culture of death, taken as a whole, betrays a completely
individualistic concept of freedom, which ends up by becoming the
freedom
of "the strong" against the weak who have no choice but to
submit.
It is
precisely in this sense that Cain's answer to the Lord's
question:
"Where is Abel your brother?" can be interpreted: "I do
not know;
am I my brother's keeper?" (Gen 4:9). Yes, every man is
his
"brother's keeper", because God entrusts us to one another. And
it is
also in view of this entrusting that God gives everyone
freedom,
a freedom which possesses an inherently relational
dimension. This is a great gift of the Creator, placed as it is at
the
service of the person and of his fulfilment through the gift of
self and
openness to others; but when freedom is made absolute in an
individualistic way, it is emptied of its original content, and its
very
meaning and dignity are contradicted.
There is
an even more profound aspect which needs to be emphasized:
freedom
negates and destroys itself, and becomes a factor leading to
the
destruction of others, when it no longer recognizes and respects
its
essential link with the truth. When freedom, out of a desire to
emancipate itself from all forms of tradition and authority, shuts
out even
the most obvious evidence of an objective and universal
truth,
which is the foundation of personal and social life, then the
person
ends up by no longer taking as the sole and indisputable
point of
reference for his own choices the truth about good and
evil, but
only his subjective and changeable opinion or, indeed, his
selfish
interest and whim.
20. This
view of freedom leads to a serious distortion of life in
society.
If the promotion of the self is understood in terms of
absolute
autonomy, people inevitably reach the point of rejecting
one
another. Everyone else is considered an enemy from whom one has
to defend
oneself. Thus society becomes a mass of individuals placed
side by
side, but without any mutual bonds. Each one wishes to
assert
himself independently of the other and in fact intends to
make his
own interests prevail. Still, in the face of other people's
analogous
interests, some kind of compromise must be found, if one
wants a
society in which the maximum possible freedom is guaranteed
to each
individual. In this way, any reference to common values and
to a
truth absolutely binding on everyone is lost, and social life
ventures
on to the shifting sands of complete relativism. At that
point,
everything is negotiable, everything is open to bargaining:
even the
first of the fundamental rights, the right to life.
This is
what is happening also at the level of politics and
government: the original and inalienable right to life is questioned
or denied
on the basis of a parliamentary vote or the will of one
part of
the people—even if it is the majority. This is the sinister
result of
a relativism which reigns unopposed: the "right" ceases to
be such,
because it is no longer firmly founded on the inviolable
dignity
of the person, but is made subject to the will of the
stronger
part. In this way democracy, contradicting its own
principles, effectively moves towards a form of totalitarianism. The
State is
no longer the "common home" where all can live together on
the basis
of principles of fundamental equality, but is transformed
into a
tyrant State, which arrogates to itself the right to dispose
of the
life of the weakest and most defenceless members, from the
unborn
child to the elderly, in the name of a public interest which
is really
nothing but the interest of one part. The appearance of
the
strictest respect for legality is maintained, at least when the
laws
permitting abortion and euthanasia are the result of a ballot
in
accordance with what are generally seen as the rules of
democracy. Really, what we have here is only the tragic caricature
of
legality; the democratic ideal, which is only truly such when it
acknowledges and safeguards the dignity of every human person, is
betrayed
in its very foundations: "How is it still possible to speak
of the
dignity of every human person when the killing of the weakest
and most
innocent is permitted? In the name of what justice is the
most
unjust of discriminations practised: some individuals are held
to be
deserving of defence and others are denied that dignity?"16
When this
happens, the process leading to the breakdown of a
genuinely
human co-existence and the disintegration of the State
itself
has already begun.
To claim
the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to
recognize
that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a
perverse
and evil significance: that of an absolute power over
others
and against others. This is the death of true freedom:
"Truly,
truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to
sin" (Jn
8:34).
"And from your face I shall be hidden" (Gen 4:14): the eclipse of
the sense
of God and of man
21. In
seeking the deepest roots of the struggle between the
"culture
of life" and the "culture of death", we cannot restrict
ourselves
to the perverse idea of freedom mentioned above. We have
to go to
the heart of the tragedy being experienced by modern man:
the
eclipse of the sense of God and of man, typical of a social and
cultural
climate dominated by secularism, which, with its ubiquitous
tentacles, succeeds at times in putting Christian communities
themselves to the test. Those who allow themselves to be influenced
by this
climate easily fall into a sad vicious circle: when the
sense of
God is lost, there is also a tendency to lose the sense of
man, of
his dignity and his life; in turn, the systematic violation
of the
moral law, especially in the serious matter of respect for
human
life and its dignity, produces a kind of progressive darkening
of the
capacity to discern God's living and saving presence.
Once
again we can gain insight from the story of Abel's murder by
his
brother. After the curse imposed on him by God, Cain thus
addresses
the Lord: "My punishment is greater than I can bear.
Behold,
you have driven me this day away from the ground; and from
your face
I shall be hidden; and I shall be a fugitive and wanderer
on the
earth, and whoever finds me will slay me" (Gen 4:13-14). Cain
is
convinced that his sin will not obtain pardon from the Lord and
that his
inescapable destiny will be to have to "hide his face" from
him. If
Cain is capable of confessing that his fault is "greater
than he
can bear", it is because he is conscious of being in the
presence
of God and before God's just judgment. It is really only
before
the Lord that man can admit his sin and recognize its full
seriousness. Such was the experience of David who, after "having
committed
evil in the sight of the Lord", and being rebuked by the
Prophet
Nathan, exclaimed: "My offences truly I know them; my sin is
always
before me. Against you, you alone, have I sinned; what is
evil in
your sight I have done" (Ps 51:5-6).
22.
Consequently, when the sense of God is lost, the sense of man is
also
threatened and poisoned, as the Second Vatican Council
concisely
states: "Without the Creator the creature would disappear
. . . But
when God is forgotten the creature itself grows
unintelligible".17 Man is no longer able to see himself as
"mysteriously different" from other earthly creatures; he regards
himself
merely as one more living being, as an organism which, at
most, has
reached a very high stage of perfection. Enclosed in the
narrow
horizon of his physical nature, he is somehow reduced to
being "a
thing", and no longer grasps the "transcendent" character
of his
"existence as man". He no longer considers life as a splendid
gift of
God, something "sacred" entrusted to his responsibility and
thus also
to his loving care and "veneration". Life itself becomes a
mere
"thing", which man claims as his exclusive property, completely
subject
to his control and manipulation.
Thus, in
relation to life at birth or at death, man is no longer
capable
of posing the question of the truest meaning of his own
existence, nor can he assimilate with genuine freedom these crucial
moments
of his own history. He is concerned only with "doing", and,
using all
kinds of technology, he busies himself with programming,
controlling and dominating birth and death. Birth and death, instead
of being
primary experiences demanding to be "lived", become things
to be
merely "possessed" or "rejected".
Moreover,
once all reference to God has been removed, it is not
surprising that the meaning of everything else becomes profoundly
distorted. Nature itself, from being "mater" (mother), is now
reduced
to being "matter", and is subjected to every kind of
manipulation. This is the direction in which a certain technical and
scientific way of thinking, prevalent in present-day culture,
appears
to be leading when it rejects the very idea that there is a
truth of
creation which must be acknowledged, or a plan of God for
life
which must be respected. Something similar happens when concern
about the
consequences of such a "freedom without law" leads some
people to
the opposite position of a "law without freedom", as for
example
in ideologies which consider it unlawful to interfere in any
way with
nature, practically "divinizing" it. Again, this is a
misunderstanding of nature's dependence on the plan of the Creator.
Thus it
is clear that the loss of contact with God's wise design is
the
deepest root of modern man's confusion, both when this loss
leads to
a freedom without rules and when it leaves man in "fear" of
his
freedom.
By living "as if God did not exist", man not only loses sight of the
mystery
of God, but also of the mystery of the world and the mystery
of his
own being.
23. The
eclipse of the sense of God and of man inevitably leads to a
practical
materialism, which breeds individualism, utilitarianism
and
hedonism. Here too we see the permanent validity of the words of
the
Apostle: "And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God
gave them
up to a base mind and to improper conduct" (Rom 1:28). The
values of
being are replaced by those of having. The only goal which
counts is
the pursuit of one's own material well-being. The
so-called
"quality of life" is interpreted primarily or exclusively
as
economic efficiency, inordinate consumerism, physical beauty and
pleasure,
to the neglect of the more profound
dimensions—interpersonal, spiritual and religious—of existence.
In such a
context suffering, an inescapable burden of human
existence
but also a factor of possible personal growth, is
"censored", rejected as useless, indeed opposed as an evil, always
and in
every way to be avoided. When it cannot be avoided and the
prospect
of even some future well-being vanishes, then life appears
to have
lost all meaning and the temptation grows in man to claim
the right
to suppress it.
Within
this same cultural climate, the body is no longer perceived
as a
properly personal reality, a sign and place of relations with
others,
with God and with the world. It is reduced to pure
materiality: it is simply a complex of organs, functions and
energies
to be used according to the sole criteria of pleasure and
efficiency. Consequently, sexuality too is depersonalized and
exploited: from being the sign, place and language of love, that is,
of the
gift of self and acceptance of another, in all the other's
richness
as a person, it increasingly becomes the occasion and
instrument for self-assertion and the selfish satisfaction of
personal
desires and instincts. Thus the original import of human
sexuality
is distorted and falsified, and the two meanings, unitive
and
procreative, inherent in the very nature of the conjugal act,
are
artificially separated: in this way the marriage union is
betrayed
and its fruitfulness is subjected to the caprice of the
couple.
Procreation then becomes the "enemy" to be avoided in sexual
activity:
if it is welcomed, this is only because it expresses a
desire,
or indeed the intention, to have a child "at all costs", and
not
because it signifies the complete acceptance of the other and
therefore
an openness to the richness of life which the child
represents.
In the
materialistic perspective described so far, interpersonal
relations
are seriously impoverished. The first to be harmed are
women,
children, the sick or suffering, and the elderly. The
criterion
of personal dignity—which demands respect, generosity and
service—is replaced by the criterion of efficiency, functionality
and
usefulness: others are considered not for what they "are", but
for what
they "have, do and produce". This is the supremacy of the
strong
over the weak.
24. It is
at the heart of the moral conscience that the eclipse of
the sense
of God and of man, with all its various and deadly
consequences for life, is taking place. It is a question, above all,
of the
individual conscience, as it stands before God in its
singleness and uniqueness.18 But it is also a question, in a certain
sense, of
the "moral conscience" of society: in a way it too is
responsible, not only because it tolerates or fosters behaviour
contrary
to life, but also because it encourages the "culture of
death",
creating and consolidating actual "structures of sin" which
go
against life. The moral conscience, both individual and social,
is today
subjected, also as a result of the penetrating influence of
the
media, to an extremely serious and mortal danger: that of
confusion
between good and evil, precisely in relation to the
fundamental right to life. A large part of contemporary society
looks
sadly like that humanity which Paul describes in his Letter to
the
Romans. It is composed "of men who by their wickedness suppress
the
truth" (1:18): having denied God and believing that they can
build the
earthly city without him, "they became futile in their
thinking"
so that "their senseless minds were darkened" (1:21);
"claiming
to be wise, they became fools" (1:22), carrying out works
deserving
of death, and "they not only do them but approve those who
practise
them" (1:32). When conscience, this bright lamp of the soul
(cf. Mt
6:22-23), calls "evil good and good evil" (Is 5:20), it is
already
on the path to the most alarming corruption and the darkest
moral
blindness.
And yet
all the conditioning and efforts to enforce silence fail to
stifle
the voice of the Lord echoing in the conscience of every
individual: it is always from this intimate sanctuary of the