ENCYCLICAL LETTER EVANGELIUM VITAE
To 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
HH. John Paull II
March 25, 1995
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
defense 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 practice 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 defense 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 defense
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 defenseless
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
splendor 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.
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 practiced.
At the root of every act of violence against one's neighbor
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 4:11-12). 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 practiced 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
fulfillment. 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 practiced 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 over- population 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
fulfillment 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 soci- ety 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 defenseless 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 practiced: some individuals are held to be
deserving of defense 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
behavior 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 practice 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 conscience that a new journey of love, openness and service
to human life can begin.
"You have come to the sprinkled blood" (cf. Heb 12: 22, 24):
signs of hope and invitation to commitment
25. "The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the
ground" (Gen 4:10). It is not only the voice of the blood of
Abel, the first innocent man to be murdered, which cries to God,
the source and defender of life. The blood of every other human
being who has been killed since Abel is also a voice raised to
the Lord. In an absolutely singular way, as the author of the
Letter to the Hebrews reminds us, the voice of the blood of
Christ, of whom Abel in his innocence is a prophetic figure,
cries out to God: "You have come to Mount Zion and to the city
of the living God ... to the mediator of a new covenant, and to
the sprinkled blood that speaks more graciously than the blood
of Abel" (12:22, 24).
It is the sprinkled blood. A symbol and prophetic sign of it had
been the blood of the sacrifices of the Old Covenant, whereby
God expressed his will to communicate his own life to men,
purifying and consecrating them (cf. Ex 24:8; Lev 17:11). Now
all of this is fulfilled and comes true in Christ: his is the
sprinkled blood which redeems, purifies and saves; it is the
blood of the Mediator of the New Covenant "poured out for many
for the forgiveness of sins" (Mt 26:28). This blood, which flows
from the pierced side of Christ on the Cross (cf. Jn 19:34),
"speaks more graciously" than the blood of Abel; indeed, it
expresses and requires a more radical "justice", and above all
it implores mercy, 19 it makes intercession for the brethren
before the Father (cf. Heb 7:25), and it is the source of
perfect redemption and the gift of new life.
The blood of Christ, while it reveals the grandeur of the
Father's love, shows how precious man is in God's eyes and how
priceless the value of his life. The Apostle Peter reminds us of
this: "You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways
inherited from your fathers, not with perishable things such as
silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that
of a lamb without blemish or spot" (1 Pt 1:18-19). Precisely by
contemplating the precious blood of Christ, the sign of his
self-giving love (cf. Jn 13:1), the believer learns to recognize
and appreciate the almost divine dignity of every human being
and can exclaim with ever renewed and grateful wonder: "How
precious must man be in the eyes of the Creator, if he ?gained
so great a Redeemer' (Exsultet of the Easter Vigil), and if God
?gave his only Son' in order that man ?should not perish but
have eternal life' (cf. Jn 3:16)!". 20
Furthermore, Christ's blood reveals to man that his greatness,
and therefore his vocation, consists in the sincere gift of
self. Precisely because it is poured out as the gift of life,
the blood of Christ is no longer a sign of death, of definitive
separation from the brethren, but the instrument of a communion
which is richness of life for all. Whoever in the Sacrament of
the Eucharist drinks this blood and abides in Jesus (cf. Jn
6:56) is drawn into the dynamism of his love and gift of life,
in order to bring to its fullness the original vocation to love
which belongs to everyone (cf. Gen 1:27; 2:18-24).
It is from the blood of Christ that all draw the strength to
commit themselves to promoting life. It is precisely this blood
that is the most powerful source of hope, indeed it is the
foundation of the absolute certitude that in God's plan life
will be victorious. "And death shall be no more", exclaims the
powerful voice which comes from the throne of God in the
Heavenly Jerusalem (Rev 21:4). And Saint Paul assures us that
the present victory over sin is a sign and anticipation of the
definitive victory over death, when there "shall come to pass
the saying that is written: ?Death is swallowed up in victory'.
?O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?'
" (1 Cor 15:54-55).
26. In effect, signs which point to this victory are not lacking
in our societies and cultures, strongly marked though they are
by the "culture of death". It would therefore be to give a
one-sided picture, which could lead to sterile discouragement,
if the condemnation of the threats to life were not accompanied
by the presentation of the positive signs at work in humanity's
present situation.
Unfortunately it is often hard to see and recognize these
positive signs, perhaps also because they do not receive
sufficient attention in the communications media. Yet, how many
initiatives of help and support for people who are weak and
defenseless have sprung up and continue to spring up in the
Christian community and in civil society, at the local, national
and international level, through the efforts of individuals,
groups, movements and organizations of various kinds!
There are still many married couples who, with a generous sense
of responsibility, are ready to accept children as "the supreme
gift of marriage".21 Nor is there a lack of families which, over
and above their everyday service to life, are willing to accept
abandoned children, boys and girls and teenagers in difficulty,
handicapped persons, elderly men and women who have been left
alone. Many centers in support of life, or similar institutions,
are sponsored by individuals and groups which, with admirable
dedication and sacrifice, offer moral and material support to
mothers who are in difficulty and are tempted to have recourse
to abortion. Increasingly, there are appearing in many places
groups of volunteers prepared to offer hospitality to persons
without a family, who find themselves in conditions of
particular distress or who need a supportive environment to help
them to overcome destructive habits and discover anew the
meaning of life.
Medical science, thanks to the committed efforts of researchers
and practitioners, continues in its efforts to discover ever
more effective remedies: treatments which were once
inconceivable but which now offer much promise for the future
are today being developed for the unborn, the suffering and
those in an acute or terminal stage of sickness. Various
agencies and organizations are mobilizing their efforts to bring
the benefits of the most advanced medicine to countries most
afflicted by poverty and endemic diseases. In a similar way
national and international associations of physicians are being
organized to bring quick relief to peoples affected by natural
disasters, epidemics or wars. Even if a just international
distribution of medical resources is still far from being a
reality, how can we not recognize in the steps taken so far the
sign of a growing solidarity among peoples, a praiseworthy human
and moral sensitivity and a greater respect for life?
27. In view of laws which permit abortion and in view of
efforts, which here and there have been successful, to legalize
euthanasia, movements and initiatives to raise social awareness
in defense of life have sprung up in many parts of the world.
When, in accordance with their principles, such movements act
resolutely, but without resorting to violence, they promote a
wider and more profound consciousness of the value of life, and
evoke and bring about a more determined commitment to its
defense.
Furthermore, how can we fail to mention all those daily gestures
of openness, sacrifice and unselfish care which countless people
lovingly make in families, hospitals, orphanages, homes for the
elderly and other centers or communities which defend life?
Allowing herself to be guided by the example of Jesus the "Good
Samaritan" (cf. Lk 10:29-37) and upheld by his strength, the
Church has always been in the front line in providing charitable
help: so many of her sons and daughters, especially men and
women Religious, in traditional and ever new forms, have
consecrated and continue to consecrate their lives to God,
freely giving of themselves out of love for their neighbor,
especially for the weak and needy. These deeds strengthen the
bases of the "civilization of love and life", without which the
life of individuals and of society itself loses its most
genuinely human quality. Even if they go unnoticed and remain
hidden to most people, faith assures us that the Father "who
sees in secret" (Mt 6:6) not only will reward these actions but
already here and now makes them produce lasting fruit for the
good of all.
Among the signs of hope we should also count the spread, at many
levels of public opinion, of a new sensitivity ever more opposed
to war as an instrument for the resolution of conflicts between
peoples, and increasingly oriented to finding effective but
"non-violent" means to counter the armed aggressor. In the same
perspective there is evidence of a growing public opposition to
the death penalty, even when such a penalty is seen as a kind of
"legitimate defense" on the part of society. Modern society in
fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering
criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance
to reform.
Another welcome sign is the growing attention being paid to the
quality of life and to ecology, especially in more developed
societies, where people's expectations are no longer
concentrated so much on problems of survival as on the search
for an overall improvement of living conditions. Especially
significant is the reawakening of an ethical reflection on
issues affecting life. The emergence and ever more widespread
development of bioethics is promoting more reflection and
dialogue-between believers and non-believers, as well as between
followers of different religions- on ethical problems, including
fundamental issues pertaining to human life.
28. This situation, with its lights and shadows, ought to make
us all fully aware that we are facing an enormous and dramatic
clash between good and evil, death and life, the "culture of
death" and the "culture of life". We find ourselves not only
"faced with" but necessarily "in the midst of" this conflict: we
are all involved and we all share in it, with the inescapable
responsibility of choosing to be unconditionally pro-life.
For us too Moses' invitation rings out loud and clear: "See, I
have set before you this day life and good, death and evil. ...
I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse;
therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live" (Dt
30:15, 19). This invitation is very appropriate for us who are
called day by day to the duty of choosing between the "culture
of life" and the "culture of death". But the call of Deuteronomy
goes even deeper, for it urges us to make a choice which is
properly religious and moral. It is a question of giving our own
existence a basic orientation and living the law of the Lord
faithfully and consistently: "If you obey the commandments of
the Lord your God which I command you this day, by loving the
Lord your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his
commandments and his statutes and his ordinances, then you shall
live ... therefore choose life, that you and your descendants
may live, loving the Lord your God, obeying his voice, and
cleaving to him; for that means life to you and length of days"
(30:16,19-20).
The unconditional choice for life reaches its full religious and
moral meaning when it flows from, is formed by and nourished by
faith in Christ. Nothing helps us so much to face positively the
conflict between death and life in which we are engaged as faith
in the Son of God who became man and dwelt among men so "that
they may have life, and have it abundantly" (Jn 10:10). It is a
matter of faith in the Risen Lord, who has conquered death;
faith in the blood of Christ "that speaks more graciously than
the blood of Abel" (Heb 12:24).
With the light and strength of this faith, therefore, in facing
the challenges of the present situation, the Church is becoming
more aware of the grace and responsibility which come to her
from her Lord of proclaiming, celebrating and serving the Gospel
of life.
This page is the work of the Servants of the Pierced Hearts of Jesus and
Mary
