ENCYCLICAL LETTER EVANGELIUM VITAE
Third Part
CHAPTER III - YOU SHALL NOT KILL
GOD'S HOLY LAW
"If you would enter life, keep the commandments" (Mt 19:17):
Gospel and commandment
52. "And behold, one came up to him, saying, ?Teacher, what good
deed must I do, to have eternal life?' " (Mt 19:6). Jesus
replied, "If you would enter life, keep the commandments" (Mt
19:17). The Teacher is speaking about eternal life, that is, a
sharing in the life of God himself. This life is attained
through the observance of the Lord's commandments, including the
commandment "You shall not kill". This is the first precept from
the Decalogue which Jesus quotes to the young man who asks him
what commandments he should observe: "Jesus said, ?You shall not
kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal...' "
(Mt 19:18).
God's commandment is never detached from his love: it is always
a gift meant for man's growth and joy. As such, it represents an
essential and indispensable aspect of the Gospel, actually
becoming "gospel" itself: joyful good news. The Gospel of life
is both a great gift of God and an exacting task for humanity.
It gives rise to amazement and gratitude in the person graced
with freedom, and it asks to be welcomed, preserved and
esteemed, with a deep sense of responsibility. In giving life to
man, God demands that he love, respect and promote life. The
gift thus becomes a commandment, and the commandment is itself a
gift.
Man, as the living image of God, is willed by his Creator to be
ruler and lord. Saint Gregory of Nyssa writes that "God made man
capable of carrying out his role as king of the earth ... Man
was created in the image of the One who governs the universe.
Everything demonstrates that from the beginning man's nature was
marked by royalty... Man is a king. Created to exercise dominion
over the world, he was given a likeness to the king of the
universe; he is the living image who participates by his dignity
in the perfection of the divine archetype".38 Called to be
fruitful and multiply, to subdue the earth and to exercise
dominion over other lesser creatures (cf. Gen 1:28), man is
ruler and lord not only over things but especially over himself,
39 and in a certain sense, over the life which he has received
and which he is able to transmit through procreation, carried
out with love and respect for God's plan. Man's lordship however
is not absolute, but ministerial: it is a real reflection of the
unique and infinite lordship of God. Hence man must exercise it
with wisdom and love, sharing in the boundless wisdom and love
of God. And this comes about through obedience to God's holy
Law: a free and joyful obedience (cf. Ps 119), born of and
fostered by an awareness that the precepts of the Lord are a
gift of grace entrusted to man always and solely for his good,
for the preservation of his personal dignity and the pursuit of
his happiness.
With regard to things, but even more with regard to life, man is
not the absolute master and final judge, but rather-and this is
where his incomparable greatness lies-he is the "minister of
God's plan".40
Life is entrusted to man as a treasure which must not be
squandered, as a talent which must be used well. Man must render
an account of it to his Master (cf. Mt 25:14-30; Lk 19:12-27).
"From man in regard to his fellow man I will demand an
accounting for human life" (Gen 9:5): human life is sacred and
inviolable
53. "Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves
?the creative action of God', and it remains forever in a
special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God
alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no
one can, in any circumstance, claim for himself the right to
destroy directly an innocent human being".41 With these words
the Instruction Donum Vitae sets forth the central content of
God's revelation on the sacredness and inviolability of human
life.
Sacred Scripture in fact presents the precept "You shall not
kill" as a divine commandment (Ex 20:13; Dt 5:17). As I have
already emphasized, this commandment is found in the Decalogue,
at the heart of the Covenant which the Lord makes with his
chosen people; but it was already contained in the original
covenant between God and humanity after the purifying punishment
of the Flood, caused by the spread of sin and violence (cf. Gen
9:5-6).
God proclaims that he is absolute Lord of the life of man, who
is formed in his image and likeness (cf. Gen 1:26-28). Human
life is thus given a sacred and inviolable character, which
reflects the inviolability of the Creator himself. Precisely for
this reason God will severely judge every violation of the
commandment "You shall not kill", the commandment which is at
the basis of all life together in society. He is the "goel", the
defender of the innocent (cf. Gen 4:9-15; Is 41:14; Jer 50:34;
Ps 19:14). God thus shows that he does not delight in the death
of the living (cf. Wis 1:13). Only Satan can delight therein:
for through his envy death entered the world (cf. Wis 2:24). He
who is "a murderer from the beginning", is also "a liar and the
father of lies" (Jn 8:44). By deceiving man he leads him to
projects of sin and death, making them appear as goals and
fruits of life.
54. As explicitly formulated, the precept "You shall not kill"
is strongly negative: it indicates the extreme limit which can
never be exceeded. Implicitly, however, it encourages a positive
attitude of absolute respect for life; it leads to the promotion
of life and to progress along the way of a love which gives,
receives and serves. The people of the Covenant, although slowly
and with some contradictions, progressively matured in this way
of thinking, and thus prepared for the great proclamation of
Jesus that the commandment to love one's neighbor is like the
commandment to love God; "on these two commandments depend all
the law and the prophets" (cf. Mt 22:36-40). Saint Paul
emphasizes that "the commandment ... you shall not kill ... and
any other commandment, are summed up in this phrase: ?You shall
love your neighbor as yourself' " (Rom 13:9; cf. Gal 5:14).
Taken up and brought to fulfillment in the New Law, the
commandment "You shall not kill" stands as an indispensable
condition for being able "to enter life" (cf. Mt 19:16-19). In
this same perspective, the words of the Apostle John have a
categorical ring: "Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer,
and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him"
(1 Jn 3:15).
From the beginning, the living Tradition of the Church-as shown
by the Didache, the most ancient non-biblical Christian
writing-categorically repeated the commandment "You shall not
kill": "There are two ways, a way of life and a way of death;
there is a great difference between them... In accordance with
the precept of the teaching: you shall not kill ... you shall
not put a child to death by abortion nor kill it once it is born
... The way of death is this: ... they show no compassion for
the poor, they do not suffer with the suffering, they do not
acknowledge their Creator, they kill their children and by
abortion cause God's creatures to perish; they drive away the
needy, oppress the suffering, they are advocates of the rich and
unjust judges of the poor; they are filled with every sin. May
you be able to stay ever apart, o children, from all these
sins!". 42
As time passed, the Church's Tradition has always consistently
taught the absolute and unchanging value of the commandment "You
shall not kill". It is a known fact that in the first centuries,
murder was put among the three most serious sins-along with
apostasy and adultery-and required a particularly heavy and
lengthy public penance before the repentant murderer could be
granted forgiveness and readmission to the ecclesial community.
55. This should not cause surprise: to kill a human being, in
whom the image of God is present, is a particularly serious sin.
Only God is the master of life! Yet from the beginning, faced
with the many and often tragic cases which occur in the life of
individuals and society, Christian reflection has sought a
fuller and deeper understanding of what God's commandment
prohibits and prescribes. 43 There are in fact situations in
which values proposed by God's Law seem to involve a genuine
paradox. This happens for example in the case of legitimate
defense, in which the right to protect one's own life and the
duty not to harm someone else's life are difficult to reconcile
in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty
to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true
right to self-defense. The demanding commandment of love of
neighbor, set forth in the Old Testament and confirmed by
Jesus, itself presupposes love of oneself as the basis of
comparison: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself " (Mk
12:31). Consequently, no one can renounce the right to self-defense
out of lack of love for life or for self. This can only be done
in virtue of a heroic love which deepens and transfigures the
love of self into a radical self-offering, according to the
spirit of the Gospel Beatitudes (cf. Mt 5:38-40). The sublime
example of this self-offering is the Lord Jesus himself.
Moreover, "legitimate defense can be not only a right but a
grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the
common good of the family or of the State".44 Unfortunately it
happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of
causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case,
the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action
brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible
because of a lack of the use of reason. 45
56. This is the context in which to place the problem of the
death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both
in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied
in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely.
The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal
justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the
end, with God's plan for man and society. The primary purpose of
the punishment which society inflicts is "to redress the
disorder caused by the offence".46 Public authority must redress
the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the
offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition
for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom.
In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending
public order and ensuring people's safety, while at the same
time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his
or her behavior and be rehabilitated. 47
It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature
and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and
decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the
offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words,
when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today
however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization
of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not
practically non-existent.
In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of
the Catholic Church remains valid: "If bloodless means are
sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to
protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority
must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond
to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in
conformity to the dignity of the human person".48
57. If such great care must be taken to respect every life, even
that of criminals and unjust aggressors, the commandment "You
shall not kill" has absolute value when it refers to the
innocent person. And all the more so in the case of weak and
defenseless human beings, who find their ultimate defense
against the arrogance and caprice of others only in the absolute
binding force of God's commandment.
In effect, the absolute inviolability of innocent human life is
a moral truth clearly taught by Sacred Scripture, constantly
upheld in the Church's Tradition and consistently proposed by
her Magisterium. This consistent teaching is the evident result
of that "supernatural sense of the faith" which, inspired and
sustained by the Holy Spirit, safeguards the People of God from
error when "it shows universal agreement in matters of faith and
morals".49
Faced with the progressive weakening in individual consciences
and in society of the sense of the absolute and grave moral
illicitness of the direct taking of all innocent human life,
especially at its beginning and at its end, the Church's
Magisterium has spoken out with increasing frequency in defence
of the sacredness and inviolability of human life. The Papal
Magisterium, particularly insistent in this regard, has always
been seconded by that of the Bishops, with numerous and
comprehensive doctrinal and pastoral documents issued either by
Episcopal Conferences or by individual Bishops. The Second
Vatican Council also addressed the matter forcefully, in a brief
but incisive passage. 50
Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter
and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the
Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing
of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This
doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light
of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is
reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of
the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
51
The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of
his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as
an end in itself or as a means to a good end. It is in fact a
grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God
himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it contradicts
the fundamental virtues of justice and charity. "Nothing and no
one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human
being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an
old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a
person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for
this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for
another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she
consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any
authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action".52
As far as the right to life is concerned, every innocent human
being is absolutely equal to all others. This equality is the
basis of all authentic social relationships which, to be truly
such, can only be founded on truth and justice, recognizing and
protecting every man and woman as a person and not as an object
to be used. Before the moral norm which prohibits the direct
taking of the life of an innocent human being "there are no
privileges or exceptions for anyone. It makes no difference
whether one is the master of the world or the ?poorest of the
poor' on the face of the earth. Before the demands of morality
we are all absolutely equal".53
"Your eyes beheld my unformed substance" (Ps 139:16): the
unspeakable crime of abortion
58. Among all the crimes which can be committed against life,
procured abortion has characteristics making it particularly
serious and deplorable. The Second Vatican Council defines
abortion, together with infanticide, as an "unspeakable
crime".54
But today, in many people's consciences, the perception of its
gravity has become progressively obscured. The acceptance of
abortion in the popular mind, in behavior and even in law
itself, is a telling sign of an extremely dangerous crisis of
the moral sense, which is becoming more and more incapable of
distinguishing between good and evil, even when the fundamental
right to life is at stake. Given such a grave situation, we need
now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the
eye and to call things by their proper name, without yielding to
convenient compromises or to the temptation of self-deception.
In this regard the reproach of the Prophet is extremely
straightforward: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,
who put darkness for light and light for darkness" (Is 5:20).
Especially in the case of abortion there is a widespread use of
ambiguous terminology, such as "interruption of pregnancy",
which tends to hide abortion's true nature and to attenuate its
seriousness in public opinion. Perhaps this linguistic
phenomenon is itself a symptom of an uneasiness of conscience.
But no word has the power to change the reality of things:
procured abortion is the deliberate and direct killing, by
whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the
initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception
to birth.
The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its
truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder and, in
particular, when we consider the specific elements involved. The
one eliminated is a human being at the very beginning of life.
No one more absolutely innocent could be imagined. In no way
could this human being ever be considered an aggressor, much
less an unjust aggressor! He or she is weak, defenseless, even
to the point of lacking that minimal form of defense consisting
in the poignant power of a newborn baby's cries and tears. The
unborn child is totally entrusted to the protection and care of
the woman carrying him or her in the womb. And yet sometimes it
is precisely the mother herself who makes the decision and asks
for the child to be eliminated, and who then goes about having
it done.
It is true that the decision to have an abortion is often tragic
and painful for the mother, insofar as the decision to rid
herself of the fruit of conception is not made for purely
selfish reasons or out of convenience, but out of a desire to
protect certain important values such as her own health or a
decent standard of living for the other members of the family.
Sometimes it is feared that the child to be born would live in
such conditions that it would be better if the birth did not
take place. Nevertheless, these reasons and others like them,
however serious and tragic, can never justify the deliberate
killing of an innocent human being.
59. As well as the mother, there are often other people too who
decide upon the death of the child in the womb. In the first
place, the father of the child may be to blame, not only when he
directly pressures the woman to have an abortion, but also
when he indirectly encourages such a decision on her part by
leaving her alone to face the problems of pregnancy: 55 in this
way the family is thus mortally wounded and profaned in its
nature as a community of love and in its vocation to be the
"sanctuary of life". Nor can one overlook the pressures which
sometimes come from the wider family circle and from friends.
Sometimes the woman is subjected to such strong pressure that
she feels psychologically forced to have an abortion: certainly
in this case moral responsibility lies particularly with those
who have directly or indirectly obliged her to have an abortion.
Doctors and nurses are also responsible, when they place at the
service of death skills which were acquired for promoting life.
But responsibility likewise falls on the legislators who have
promoted and approved abortion laws, and, to the extent that
they have a say in the matter, on the administrators of the
health-care centers where abortions are performed. A general and
no less serious responsibility lies with those who have
encouraged the spread of an attitude of sexual permissiveness
and a lack of esteem for motherhood, and with those who should
have ensured-but did not-effective family and social policies in
support of families, especially larger families and those with
particular financial and educational needs. Finally, one cannot
overlook the network of complicity which reaches out to include
international institutions, foundations and associations which
systematically campaign for the legalization and spread of
abortion in the world. In this sense abortion goes beyond the
responsibility of individuals and beyond the harm done to them,
and takes on a distinctly social dimension. It is a most serious
wound inflicted on society and its culture by the very people
who ought to be society's promoters and defenders. As I wrote in
my Letter to Families, "we are facing an immense threat to life:
not only to the life of individuals but also to that of
civilization itself".56 We are facing what can be called a
"structure of sin" which opposes human life not yet born.
60. Some people try to justify abortion by claiming that the
result of conception, at least up to a certain number of days,
cannot yet be considered a personal human life. But in fact,
"from the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun
which is neither that of the father nor the mother; it is rather
the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would
never be made human if it were not human already. This has
always been clear, and ... modern genetic science offers clear
confirmation. It has demonstrated that from the first instant
there is established the programme of what this living being
will be: a person, this individual person with his
characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from
fertilization the adventure of a human life begins, and each of
its capacities requires time-a rather lengthy time-to find its
place and to be in a position to act".57 Even if the presence of
a spiritual soul cannot be ascertained by empirical data, the
results themselves of scientific research on the human embryo
provide "a valuable indication for discerning by the use of
reason a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance
of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human
person?". 58
Furthermore, what is at stake is so important that, from the
standpoint of moral obligation, the mere probability that a
human person is involved would suffice to justify an absolutely
clear prohibition of any intervention aimed at killing a human
embryo. Precisely for this reason, over and above all scientific
debates and those philosophical affirmations to which the
Magisterium has not expressly committed itself, the Church has
always taught and continues to teach that the result of human
procreation, from the first moment of its existence, must be
guaranteed that unconditional respect which is morally due to
the human being in his or her totality and unity as body and
spirit: "The human being is to be respected and treated as a
person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that
same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among
which in the first place is the inviolable right of every
innocent human being to life".59
61. The texts of Sacred Scripture never address the question of
deliberate abortion and so do not directly and specifically
condemn it. But they show such great respect for the human being
in the mother's womb that they require as a logical consequence
that God's commandment "You shall not kill" be extended to the
unborn child as well.
Human life is sacred and inviolable at every moment of
existence, including the initial phase which precedes birth. All
human beings, from their mothers' womb, belong to God who
searches them and knows them, who forms them and knits them
together with his own hands, who gazes on them when they are
tiny shapeless embryos and already sees in them the adults of
tomorrow whose days are numbered and whose vocation is even now
written in the "book of life" (cf. Ps 139: 1, 13-16). There too,
when they are still in their mothers' womb-as many passages of
the Bible bear witness60-they are the personal objects of God's
loving and fatherly providence.
Christian Tradition-as the Declaration issued by the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith points out so
well61-is clear and unanimous, from the beginning up to our own
day, in describing abortion as a particularly grave moral
disorder. From its first contacts with the Greco-Roman world,
where abortion and infanticide were widely practiced, the first
Christian community, by its teaching and practice, radically
opposed the customs rampant in that society, as is clearly shown
by the Didache mentioned earlier. 62 Among the Greek
ecclesiastical writers, Athenagoras records that Christians
consider as murderesses women who have recourse to abortifacient
medicines, because children, even if they are still in their
mother's womb, "are already under the protection of Divine
Providence".63 Among the Latin authors, Tertullian affirms: "It
is anticipated murder to prevent someone from being born; it
makes little difference whether one kills a soul already born or
puts it to death at birth. He who will one day be a man is a man
already".64
Throughout Christianity's two thousand year history, this same
doctrine has been constantly taught by the Fathers of the Church
and by her Pastors and Doctors. Even scientific and
philosophical discussions about the precise moment of the
infusion of the spiritual soul have never given rise to any
hesitation about the moral condemnation of abortion.
62. The more recent Papal Magisterium has vigorously reaffirmed
this common doctrine. Pius XI in particular, in his Encyclical
Casti Connubii, rejected the specious justifications of
abortion. 65 Pius XII excluded all direct abortion, i.e., every
act tending directly to destroy human life in the womb "whether
such destruction is intended as an end or only as a means to an
end".66 John XXIII reaffirmed that human life is sacred because
"from its very beginning it directly involves God's creative
activity".67 The Second Vatican Council, as mentioned earlier,
sternly condemned abortion: "From the moment of its conception
life must be guarded with the greatest care, while abortion and
infanticide are unspeakable crimes".68
The Church's canonical discipline, from the earliest centuries,
has inflicted penal sanctions on those guilty of abortion. This
practice, with more or less severe penalties, has been confirmed
in various periods of history. The 1917 Code of Canon Law
punished abortion with excommunication. 69 The revised canonical
legislation continues this tradition when it decrees that "a
person who actually procures an abortion incurs automatic (latae
sententiae) excommunication".70 The excommunication affects
all those who commit this crime with knowledge of the penalty
attached, and thus includes those accomplices without whose help
the crime would not have been committed. 71 By this reiterated
sanction, the Church makes clear that abortion is a most serious
and dangerous crime, thereby encouraging those who commit it to
seek without delay the path of conversion. In the Church the
purpose of the penalty of excommunication is to make an
individual fully aware of the gravity of a certain sin and then
to foster genuine conversion and repentance.
Given such unanimity in the doctrinal and disciplinary tradition
of the Church, Paul VI was able to declare that this tradition
is unchanged and unchangeable. 72 Therefore, by the authority
which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in
communion with the Bishops-who on various occasions have
condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation,
albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous
agreement concerning this doctrine-I declare that direct
abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means,
always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the
deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is
based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is
transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary
and universal Magisterium. 73
No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make
licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is
contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human
heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church.
63. This evaluation of the morality of abortion is to be applied
also to the recent forms of intervention on human embryos which,
although carried out for purposes legitimate in themselves,
inevitably involve the killing of those embryos. This is the
case with experimentation on embryos, which is becoming
increasingly widespread in the field of biomedical research and
is legally permitted in some countries. Although "one must
uphold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which
respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve
disproportionate risks for it, but rather are directed to its
healing, the improvement of its condition of health, or its
individual survival",74 it must nonetheless be stated that the
use of human embryos or fetuses as an object of experimentation
constitutes a crime against their dignity as human beings who
have a right to the same respect owed to a child once born, just
as to every person. 75
This moral condemnation also regards procedures that exploit
living human embryos and fetuses-sometimes specifically
"produced" for this purpose by in vitro fertilization-either to
be used as "biological material" or as providers of organs or
tissue for transplants in the treatment of certain diseases. The
killing of innocent human creatures, even if carried out to help
others, constitutes an absolutely unacceptable act.
Special attention must be given to evaluating the morality of
prenatal diagnostic techniques which enable the early detection
of possible anomalies in the unborn child. In view of the
complexity of these techniques, an accurate and systematic moral
judgment is necessary. When they do not involve disproportionate
risks for the child and the mother, and are meant to make
possible early therapy or even to favor a serene and informed
acceptance of the child not yet born, these techniques are
morally licit. But since the possibilities of prenatal therapy
are today still limited, it not infrequently happens that these
techniques are used with a eugenic intention which accepts
selective abortion in order to prevent the birth of children
affected by various types of anomalies. Such an attitude is
shameful and utterly reprehensible, since it presumes to measure
the value of a human life only within the parameters of
"normality" and physical well-being, thus opening the way to
legitimizing infanticide and euthanasia as well.
And yet the courage and the serenity with which so many of our
brothers and sisters suffering from serious disabilities lead
their lives when they are shown acceptance and love bears
eloquent witness to what gives authentic value to life, and
makes it, even in difficult conditions, something precious for
them and for others. The Church is close to those married
couples who, with great anguish and suffering, willingly accept
gravely handicapped children. She is also grateful to all those
families which, through adoption, welcome children abandoned by
their parents because of disabilities or illnesses.
"It is I who bring both death and life" (Dt 32:39): the tragedy
of euthanasia
64. At the other end of life's spectrum, men and women find
themselves facing the mystery of death. Today, as a result of
advances in medicine and in a cultural context frequently closed
to the transcendent, the experience of dying is marked by new
features. When the prevailing tendency is to value life only to
the extent that it brings pleasure and well-being, suffering
seems like an unbearable setback, something from which one must
be freed at all costs. Death is considered "senseless" if it
suddenly interrupts a life still open to a future of new and
interesting experiences. But it becomes a "rightful liberation"
once life is held to be no longer meaningful because it is
filled with pain and inexorably doomed to even greater
suffering.
Furthermore, when he denies or neglects his fundamental
relationship to God, man thinks he is his own rule and measure,
with the right to demand that society should guarantee him the
ways and means of deciding what to do with his life in full and
complete autonomy. It is especially people in the developed
countries who act in this way: they feel encouraged to do so
also by the constant progress of medicine and its ever more
advanced techniques. By using highly sophisticated systems and
equipment, science and medical practice today are able not only
to attend to cases formerly considered untreatable and to reduce
or eliminate pain, but also to sustain and prolong life even in
situations of extreme frailty, to resuscitate artificially
patients whose basic biological functions have undergone sudden
collapse, and to use special procedures to make organs available
for transplanting.
In this context the temptation grows to have recourse to
euthanasia, that is, to take control of death and bring it about
before its time, "gently" ending one's own life or the life of
others. In reality, what might seem logical and humane, when
looked at more closely is seen to be senseless and inhumane.
Here we are faced with one of the more alarming symptoms of the
"culture of death", which is advancing above all in prosperous
societies, marked by an attitude of excessive preoccupation with
efficiency and which sees the growing number of elderly and
disabled people as intolerable and too burdensome. These people
are very often isolated by their families and by society, which
are organized almost exclusively on the basis of criteria of
productive efficiency, according to which a hopelessly impaired
life no longer has any value.
65. For a correct moral judgment on euthanasia, in the first
place a clear definition is required. Euthanasia in the strict
sense is understood to be an action or omission which of itself
and by intention causes death, with the purpose of eliminating
all suffering. "Euthanasia's terms of reference, therefore, are
to be found in the intention of the will and in the methods
used".76
Euthanasia must be distinguished from the decision to forego
so-called "aggressive medical treatment", in other words,
medical procedures which no longer correspond to the real
situation of the patient, either because they are by now
disproportionate to any expected results or because they impose
an excessive burden on the patient and his family. In such
situations, when death is clearly imminent and inevitable, one
can in conscience "refuse forms of treatment that would only
secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life, so long
as the normal care due to the sick person in similar cases is
not interrupted".77 Certainly there is a moral obligation to
care for oneself and to allow oneself to be cared for, but this
duty must take account of concrete circumstances. It needs to be
determined whether the means of treatment available are
objectively proportionate to the prospects for improvement. To
forego extraordinary or disproportionate means is not the
equivalent of suicide or euthanasia; it rather expresses
acceptance of the human condition in the face of death. 78
In modern medicine, increased attention is being given to what
are called "methods of palliative care", which seek to make
suffering more bearable in the final stages of illness and to
ensure that the patient is supported and accompanied in his or
her ordeal. Among the questions which arise in this context is
that of the licitness of using various types of painkillers and
sedatives for relieving the patient's pain when this involves
the risk of shortening life. While praise may be due to the
person who voluntarily accepts suffering by forgoing treatment
with pain-killers in order to remain fully lucid and, if a
believer, to share consciously in the Lord's Passion, such
"heroic" behavior cannot be considered the duty of everyone.
Pius XII affirmed that it is licit to relieve pain by narcotics,
even when the result is decreased consciousness and a shortening
of life, "if no other means exist, and if, in the given
circumstances, this does not prevent the carrying out of other
religious and moral duties".79 In such a case, death is not
willed or sought, even though for reasonable motives one runs
the risk of it: there is simply a desire to ease pain
effectively by using the analgesics which medicine provides. All
the same, "it is not right to deprive the dying person of
consciousness without a serious reason": 80 as they approach
death people ought to be able to satisfy their moral and family
duties, and above all they ought to be able to prepare in a
fully conscious way for their definitive meeting with God.
Taking into account these distinctions, in harmony with the
Magisterium of my Predecessors 81 and in communion with the
Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that euthanasia is a
grave violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate
and morally unacceptable killing of a human person. This
doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word
of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by
the ordinary and universal Magisterium. 82
Depending on the circumstances, this practice involves the
malice proper to suicide or murder.
66. Suicide is always as morally objectionable as murder. The
Church's tradition has always rejected it as a gravely evil
choice. 83 Even though a certain psychological, cultural and
social conditioning may induce a person to carry out an action
which so radically contradicts the innate inclination to life,
thus lessening or removing subjective responsibility, suicide,
when viewed objectively, is a gravely immoral act. In fact, it
involves the rejection of love of self and the renunciation of
the obligation of justice and charity towards one's neighbour,
towards the communities to which one belongs, and towards
society as a whole. 84 In its deepest reality, suicide
represents a rejection of God's absolute sovereignty over life
and death, as proclaimed in the prayer of the ancient sage of
Israel: "You have power over life and death; you lead men down
to the gates of Hades and back again" (Wis 16:13; cf. Tob 13:2).
To concur with the intention of another person to commit suicide
and to help in carrying it out through so-called "assisted
suicide" means to cooperate in, and at times to be the actual
perpetrator of, an injustice which can never be excused, even if
it is requested. In a remarkably relevant passage Saint
Augustine writes that "it is never licit to kill another: even
if he should wish it, indeed if he request it because, hanging
between life and death, he begs for help in freeing the soul
struggling against the bonds of the body and longing to be
released; nor is it licit even when a sick person is no longer
able to live".85 Even when not motivated by a selfish refusal to
be burdened with the life of someone who is suffering,
euthanasia must be called a false mercy, and indeed a disturbing
"perversion" of mercy. True "compassion" leads to sharing
another's pain; it does not kill the person whose suffering we
cannot bear. Moreover, the act of euthanasia appears all the
more perverse if it is carried out by those, like relatives, who
are supposed to treat a family member with patience and love, or
by those, such as doctors, who by virtue of their specific
profession are supposed to care for the sick person even in the
most painful terminal stages.
The choice of euthanasia becomes more serious when it takes the
form of a murder committed by others on a person who has in no
way requested it and who has never consented to it. The height
of arbitrariness and injustice is reached when certain people,
such as physicians or legislators, arrogate to themselves the
power to decide who ought to live and who ought to die. Once
again we find ourselves before the temptation of Eden: to become
like God who "knows good and evil" (cf. Gen 3:5). God alone has
the power over life and death: "It is I who bring both death and
life" (Dt 32:39; cf. 2 Kg 5:7; 1 Sam 2:6). But he only exercises
this power in accordance with a plan of wisdom and love. When
man usurps this power, being enslaved by a foolish and selfish
way of thinking, he inevitably uses it for injustice and death.
Thus the life of the person who is weak is put into the hands of
the one who is strong; in society the sense of justice is lost,
and mutual trust, the basis of every authentic interpersonal
relationship, is undermined at its root.
67. Quite different from this is the way of love and true mercy,
which our common humanity calls for, and upon which faith in
Christ the Redeemer, who died and rose again, sheds ever new
light. The request which arises from the human heart in the
supreme confrontation with suffering and death, especially when
faced with the temptation to give up in utter desperation, is
above all a request for companionship, sympathy and support in
the time of trial. It is a plea for help to keep on hoping when
all human hopes fail. As the Second Vatican Council reminds us:
"It is in the face of death that the riddle of human existence
becomes most acute" and yet "man rightly follows the intuition
of his heart when he abhors and repudiates the absolute ruin and
total disappearance of his own person. Man rebels against death
because he bears in himself an eternal seed which cannot be
reduced to mere matter".86
This natural aversion to death and this incipient hope of
immortality are illumined and brought to fulfillment by Christian
faith, which both promises and offers a share in the victory of
the Risen Christ: it is the victory of the One who, by his
redemptive death, has set man free from death, "the wages of
sin" (Rom 6:23), and has given him the Spirit, the pledge of
resurrection and of life (cf. Rom 8:11). The certainty of future
immortality and hope in the promised resurrection cast new light
on the mystery of suffering and death, and fill the believer
with an extraordinary capacity to trust fully in the plan of
God.
The Apostle Paul expressed this newness in terms of belonging
completely to the Lord who embraces every human condition: "None
of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. If we
live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord; so
then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's" (Rom
14:7-8). Dying to the Lord means experiencing one's death as the
supreme act of obedience to the Father (cf. Phil 2:8), being
ready to meet death at the "hour" willed and chosen by him
(cf.Jn 13:1), which can only mean when one's earthly pilgrimage
is completed. Living to the Lord also means recognizing that
suffering, while still an evil and a trial in itself, can always
become a source of good. It becomes such if it is experienced
for love and with love through sharing, by God's gracious gift
and one's own personal and free choice, in the suffering of
Christ Crucified. In this way, the person who lives his
suffering in the Lord grows more fully conformed to him (cf.
Phil 3:10; 1 Pet 2:21) and more closely associated with his
redemptive work on behalf of the Church and humanity. 87 This
was the experience of Saint Paul, which every person who suffers
is called to relive: "I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake,
and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's
afflictions for the sake of his Body, that is, the Church" (Col
1:24).
"We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29): civil law and
the moral law
68. One of the specific characteristics of present-day attacks
on human life-as has already been said several times-consists in
the trend to demand a legal justification for them, as if they
were rights which the State, at least under certain conditions,
must acknowledge as belonging to citizens. Consequently, there
is a tendency to claim that it should be possible to exercise
these rights with the safe and free assistance of doctors and
medical personnel.
It is often claimed that the life of an unborn child or a
seriously disabled person is only a relative good: according to
a proportionalist approach, or one of sheer calculation, this
good should be compared with and balanced against other goods.
It is even maintained that only someone present and personally
involved in a concrete situation can correctly judge the goods
at stake: consequently, only that person would be able to decide
on the morality of his choice. The State therefore, in the
interest of civil coexistence and social harmony, should respect
this choice, even to the point of permitting abortion and
euthanasia.
At other times, it is claimed that civil law cannot demand that
all citizens should live according to moral standards higher
than what all citizens themselves acknowledge and share. Hence
the law should always express the opinion and will of the
majority of citizens and recognize that they have, at least in
certain extreme cases, the right even to abortion and
euthanasia. Moreover the prohibition and the punishment of
abortion and euthanasia in these cases would inevitably lead-so
it is said-to an increase of illegal practices: and these would
not be subject to necessary control by society and would be
carried out in a medically unsafe way. The question is also
raised whether supporting a law which in practice cannot be
enforced would not ultimately undermine the authority of all
laws.
Finally, the more radical views go so far as to maintain that in
a modern and pluralistic society people should be allowed
complete freedom to dispose of their own lives as well as of the
lives of the unborn: it is asserted that it is not the task of
the law to choose between different moral opinions, and still
less can the law claim to impose one particular opinion to the
detriment of others.
69. In any case, in the democratic culture of our time it is
commonly held that the legal system of any society should limit
itself to taking account of and accepting the convictions of the
majority. It should therefore be based solely upon what the
majority itself considers moral and actually practices.
Furthermore, if it is believed that an objective truth shared by
all is de facto unattainable, then respect for the freedom of
the citizens-who in a democratic system are considered the true
rulers-would require that on the legislative level the autonomy
of individual consciences be acknowledged. Consequently, when
establishing those norms which are absolutely necessary for
social coexistence, the only determining factor should be the
will of the majority, whatever this may be. Hence every
politician, in his or her activity, should clearly separate the
realm of private conscience from that of public conduct.
As a result we have what appear to be two diametrically opposed
tendencies. On the one hand, individuals claim for themselves in
the moral sphere the most complete freedom of choice and demand
that the State should not adopt or impose any ethical position
but limit itself to guaranteeing maximum space for the freedom
of each individual, with the sole limitation of not infringing
on the freedom and rights of any other citizen. On the other
hand, it is held that, in the exercise of public and
professional duties, respect for other people's freedom of
choice requires that each one should set aside his or her own
convictions in order to satisfy every demand of the citizens
which is recognized and guaranteed by law; in carrying out one's
duties the only moral criterion should be what is laid down by
the law itself. Individual responsibility is thus turned over to
the civil law, with a renouncing of personal conscience, at
least in the public sphere.
70. At the basis of all these tendencies lies the ethical
relativism which characterizes much of present-day culture.
There are those who consider such relativism an essential
condition of democracy, inasmuch as it alone is held to
guarantee tolerance, mutual respect between people and
acceptance of the decisions of the majority, whereas moral norms
considered to be objective and binding are held to lead to
authoritarianism and intolerance.
But it is precisely the issue of respect for life which shows
what misunderstandings and contradictions, accompanied by
terrible practical consequences, are concealed in this position.
It is true that history has known cases where crimes have been
committed in the name of "truth". But equally grave crimes and
radical denials of freedom have also been committed and are
still being committed in the name of "ethical relativism". When
a parliamentary or social majority decrees that it is legal, at
least under certain conditions, to kill unborn human life, is it
not really making a "tyrannical" decision with regard to the
weakest and most defenseless of human beings? Everyone's
conscience rightly rejects those crimes against humanity of
which our century has had such sad experience. But would these
crimes cease to be crimes if, instead of being committed by
unscrupulous tyrants, they were legitimated by popular
consensus?
Democracy cannot be idolized to the point of making it a
substitute for morality or a panacea for immorality.
Fundamentally, democracy is a "system" and as such is a means
and not an end. Its "moral" value is not automatic, but depends
on conformity to the moral law to which it, like every other
form of human behavior, must be subject: in other words, its
morality depends on the morality of the ends which it pursues
and of the means which it employs. If today we see an almost
universal consensus with regard to the value of democracy, this
is to be considered a positive "sign of the times", as the
Church's Magisterium has frequently noted. 88 But the value of
democracy stands or falls with the values which it embodies and
promotes. Of course, values such as the dignity of every human
person, respect for inviolable and inalienable human rights, and
the adoption of the "common good" as the end and criterion
regulating political life are certainly fundamental and not to
be ignored.
The basis of these values cannot be provisional and changeable
"majority" opinions, but only the acknowledgment of an objective
moral law which, as the "natural law" written in the human
heart, is the obligatory point of reference for civil law
itself. If, as a result of a tragic obscuring of the collective
conscience, an attitude of scepticism were to succeed in
bringing into question even the fundamental principles of the
moral law, the democratic system itself would be shaken in its
foundations, and would be reduced to a mere mechanism for
regulating different and opposing interests on a purely
empirical basis. 89
Some might think that even this function, in the absence of
anything better, should be valued for the sake of peace in
society. While one acknowledges some element of truth in this
point of view, it is easy to see that without an objective moral
grounding not even democracy is capable of ensuring a stable
peace, especially since peace which is not built upon the values
of the dignity of every individual and of solidarity between all
people frequently proves to be illusory. Even in participatory
systems of government, the regulation of interests often occurs
to the advantage of the most powerful, since they are the ones
most capable of manoeuvering not only the levers of power but
also of shaping the formation of consensus. In such a situation,
democracy easily becomes an empty word.
71. It is therefore urgently necessary, for the future of
society and the development of a sound democracy, to rediscover
those essential and innate human and moral values which flow
from the very truth of the human being and express and safeguard
the dignity of the person: values which no individual, no
majority and no State can ever create, modify or destroy, but
must only acknowledge, respect and promote.
Consequently there is a need to recover the basic elements of a
vision of the relationship between civil law and moral law,
which are put forward by the Church, but which are also part of
the patrimony of the great juridical traditions of humanity.
Certainly the purpose of civil law is different and more limited
in scope than that of the moral law. But "in no sphere of life
can the civil law take the place of conscience or dictate norms
concerning things which are outside its competence",90 which is
that of ensuring the common good of people through the
recognition and defense of their fundamental rights, and the
promotion of peace and of public morality. 91 The real purpose
of civil law is to guarantee an ordered social coexistence in
true justice, so that all may "lead a quiet and peaceable life,
godly and respectful in every way" (1 Tim 2:2). Precisely for
this reason, civil law must ensure that all members of society
enjoy respect for certain fundamental rights which innately
belong to the person, rights which every positive law must
recognize and guarantee. First and fundamental among these is
the inviolable right to life of every innocent human being.
While public authority can sometimes choose not to put a stop to
something which-were it prohibited- would cause more serious
harm, 92 it can never presume to legitimize as a right of
individuals-even if they are the majority of the members of
society-an offence against other persons caused by the disregard
of so fundamental a right as the right to life. The legal
toleration of abortion or of euthanasia can in no way claim to
be based on respect for the conscience of others, precisely
because society has the right and the duty to protect itself
against the abuses which can occur in the name of conscience and
under the pretext of freedom. 93
In the Encyclical Pacem in Terris, John XXIII pointed out that
"it is generally accepted today that the common good is best
safeguarded when personal rights and duties are guaranteed. The
chief concern of civil authorities must therefore be to ensure
that these rights are recognized, respected, coordinated,
defended and promoted, and that each individual is enabled to
perform his duties more easily. For ?to safeguard the inviolable
rights of the human person, and to facilitate the performance of
his duties, is the principal duty of every public authority'.
Thus any government which refused to recognize human rights or
acted in violation of them, would not only fail in its duty; its
decrees would be wholly lacking in binding force".94
72. The doctrine on the necessary conformity of civil law with
the moral law is in continuity with the whole tradition of the
Church. This is clear once more from John XXIII's Encyclical:
"Authority is a postulate of the moral order and derives from
God. Consequently, laws and decrees enacted in contravention of
the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no
binding force in conscience...; indeed, the passing of such laws
undermines the very nature of authority and results in shameful
abuse".95 This is the clear teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas,
who writes that "human law is law inasmuch as it is in
conformity with right reason and thus derives from the eternal
law. But when a law is contrary to reason, it is called an
unjust law; but in this case it ceases to be a law and becomes
instead an act of violence".96 And again: "Every law made by man
can be called a law insofar as it derives from the natural law.
But if it is somehow opposed to the natural law, then it is not
really a law but rather a corruption of the law".97
Now the first and most immediate application of this teaching
concerns a human law which disregards the fundamental right and
source of all other rights which is the right to life, a right
belonging to every individual. Consequently, laws which
legitimize the direct killing of innocent human beings through
abortion or euthanasia are in complete opposition to the
inviolable right to life proper to every individual; they thus
deny the equality of everyone before the law. It might be
objected that such is not the case in euthanasia, when it is
requested with full awareness by the person involved. But any
State which made such a request legitimate and authorized it to
be carried out would be legalizing a case of suicide-murder,
contrary to the fundamental principles of absolute respect for
life and of the protection of every innocent life. In this way
the State contributes to lessening respect for life and opens
the door to ways of acting which are destructive of trust in
relations between people. Laws which authorize and promote
abortion and euthanasia are therefore radically opposed not only
to the good of the individual but also to the common good; as
such they are completely lacking in authentic juridical
validity. Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it
leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve,
is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of
achieving the common good. Consequently, a civil law authorizing
abortion or euthanasia ceases by that very fact to be a true,
morally binding civil law.
73. Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law
can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to
obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to
oppose them by conscientious objection. From the very beginnings
of the Church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of
their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities
(cf. Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pet 2:13-14), but at the same time it firmly
warned that "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). In
the Old Testament, precisely in regard to threats against life,
we find a significant example of resistance to the unjust
command of those in authority. After Pharaoh ordered the killing
of all newborn males, the Hebrew midwives refused. "They did not
do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male
children live" (Ex 1:17). But the ultimate reason for their
action should be noted: "the midwives feared God" (ibid.). It is
precisely from obedience to God-to whom alone is due that fear
which is acknowledgment of his absolute sovereignty-that the
strength and the courage to resist unjust human laws are born.
It is the strength and the courage of those prepared even to be
imprisoned or put to the sword, in the certainty that this is
what makes for "the endurance and faith of the saints" (Rev
13:10).
In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law
permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit
to obey it, or to "take part in a propaganda campaign in
favor
of such a law, or vote for it".98
A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a
legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more
restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized
abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or
ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a
fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be
campaigns to introduce laws favoring abortion, often supported
by powerful international organizations, in other
nations-particularly those which have already experienced the
bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing
signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one
just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or
completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official,
whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well
known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the
harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative
consequences at the level of general opinion and public
morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation
with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt
to limit its evil aspects.
74. The passing of unjust laws often raises difficult problems
of conscience for morally upright people with regard to the
issue of cooperation, since they have a right to demand not to
be forced to take part in morally evil actions. Sometimes the
choices which have to be made are difficult; they may require
the sacrifice of prestigious professional positions or the
relinquishing of reasonable hopes of career advancement. In
other cases, it can happen that carrying out certain actions,
which are provided for by legislation that overall is unjust,
but which in themselves are indifferent, or even positive, can
serve to protect human lives under threat. There may be reason
to fear, however, that willingness to carry out such actions
will not only cause scandal and weaken the necessary opposition
to attacks on life, but will gradually lead to further
capitulation to a mentality of permissiveness.
In order to shed light on this difficult question, it is
necessary to recall the general principles concerning
cooperation in evil actions. Christians, like all people of good
will, are called upon under grave obligation of conscience not
to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by
civil legislation, are contrary to God's law. Indeed, from the
moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in
evil. Such cooperation occurs when an action, either by its very
nature or by the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be
defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent
human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person
committing it. This cooperation can never be justified either by
invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to
the fact that civil law permits it or requires it. Each
individual in fact has moral responsibility for the acts which
he personally performs; no one can be exempted from this
responsibility, and on the basis of it everyone will be judged
by God himself (cf. Rom 2:6; 14:12).
To refuse to take part in committing an injustice is not only a
moral duty; it is also a basic human right. Were this not so,
the human person would be forced to perform an action
intrinsically incompatible with human dignity, and in this way
human freedom itself, the authentic meaning and purpose of which
are found in its orientation to the true and the good, would be
radically compromised. What is at stake therefore is an
essential right which, precisely as such, should be acknowledged
and protected by civil law. In this sense, the opportunity to
refuse to take part in the phases of consultation, preparation
and execution of these acts against life should be guaranteed to
physicians, health-care personnel, and directors of hospitals,
clinics and convalescent facilities. Those who have recourse to
conscientious objection must be protected not only from legal
penalties but also from any negative effects on the legal,
disciplinary, financial and professional plane.
"You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Lk 10:27):"promote"
life
75. God's commandments teach us the way of life. The negative
moral precepts, which declare that the choice of certain actions
is morally unacceptable, have an absolute value for human
freedom: they are valid always and everywhere, without
exception. They make it clear that the choice of certain ways of
acting is radically incompatible with the love of God and with
the dignity of the person created in his image. Such choices
cannot be redeemed by the goodness of any intention or of any
consequence; they are irrevocably opposed to the bond between
persons; they contradict the fundamental decision to direct
one's life to God. 99
In this sense, the negative moral precepts have an extremely
important positive function. The "no" which they unconditionally
require makes clear the absolute limit beneath which free
individuals cannot lower themselves. At the same time they
indicate the minimum which they must respect and from which they
must start out in order to say "yes" over and over again, a
"yes" which will gradually embrace the entire horizon of the
good (cf. Mt 5:48). The commandments, in particular the negative
moral precepts, are the beginning and the first necessary stage
of the journey towards freedom. As Saint Augustine writes, "the
beginning of freedom is to be free from crimes... like murder,
adultery, fornication, theft, fraud, sacrilege and so forth.
Only when one stops committing these crimes (and no Christian
should commit them), one begins to lift up one's head towards
freedom. But this is only the beginning of freedom, not perfect
freedom".100
76. The commandment "You shall not kill" thus establishes the
point of departure for the start of true freedom. It leads us to
promote life actively, and to develop particular ways of
thinking and acting which serve life. In this way we exercise
our responsibility towards the persons entrusted to us and we
show, in deeds and in truth, our gratitude to God for the great
gift of life (cf. Ps 139:13-14).
The Creator has entrusted man's life to his responsible concern,
not to make arbitrary use of it, but to preserve it with wisdom
and to care for it with loving fidelity. The God of the Covenant
has entrusted the life of every individual to his or her fellow
human beings, brothers and sisters, according to the law of
reciprocity in giving and receiving, of self-giving and of the
acceptance of others. In the fullness of time, by taking flesh
and giving his life for us, the Son of God showed what heights
and depths this law of reciprocity can reach. With the gift of
his Spirit, Christ gives new content and meaning to the law of
reciprocity, to our being entrusted to one another. The Spirit
who builds up communion in love creates between us a new
fraternity and solidarity, a true reflection of the mystery of
mutual self-giving and receiving proper to the Most Holy
Trinity. The Spirit becomes the new law which gives strength to
believers and awakens in them a responsibility for sharing the
gift of self and for accepting others, as a sharing in the
boundless love of Jesus Christ himself.
77. This new law also gives spirit and shape to the commandment
"You shall not kill". For the Christian it involves an absolute
imperative to respect, love and promote the life of every
brother and sister, in accordance with the requirements of God's
bountiful love in Jesus Christ. "He laid down his life for us;
and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren" (1 Jn
3:16).
The commandment "You shall not kill", even in its more positive
aspects of respecting, loving and promoting human life, is
binding on every individual human being. It resounds in the
moral conscience of everyone as an irrepressible echo of the
original covenant of God the Creator with mankind. It can be
recognized by everyone through the light of reason and it can be
observed thanks to the mysterious working of the Spirit who,
blowing where he wills (cf. Jn 3:8), comes to and involves every
person living in this world.
It is therefore a service of love which we are all committed to
ensure to our neighbor, that his or her life may be always
defended and promoted, especially when it is weak or threatened.
It is not only a personal but a social concern which we must all
foster: a concern to make unconditional respect for human life
the foundation of a renewed society.
We are asked to love and honor the life of every man and woman
and to work with perseverance and courage so that our time,
marked by all too many signs of death, may at last witness the
establishment of a new culture of life, the fruit of the culture
of truth and of love.
This page is the work of the Servants of the Pierced Hearts of Jesus and
Mary
