The Gospel of Life
ENCYCLICAL LETTER ADDRESSED BY THE SUPREME
PONTIFF JOHN PAUL II 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
INDEX
INTRODUCTION
The incomparable worth of the human person
[2]
New threats to human life [3-4]
In communion with all the Bishops of the world
[5-6]
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 [7-9]
"What have you done?" (Gen 4:10):
the eclipse of the value of life [10-17]
"Am I my brother's keeper?" (Gen
4:9): a perverse idea of freedom [18-20]
"And from your face I shall be hidden"
(Gen 4:14): the eclipse of the sense of God
and of man [21-24]
"You have come to the sprinkled blood"
(cf. Heb 12:22, 24): signs of hope and invitation
to commitment [25-28]
CHAPTER II
I CAME THAT THEY MAY HAVE LIFE
THE CHRISTIAN MESSAGE CONCERNING LIFE
"The life was made manifest, and we saw
it" (1 Jn 1:2): with our gaze fixed on
Christ, "the Word of life" [29-30]
"The Lord is my strength and my song,
and he has become my salvation" (Ex 15:2):
life is always a good [31]
"The name of Jesus ... has made this man
strong" (Acts 3:16): in the uncertainties
of human life, Jesus brings life's meaning to
fulfilment [32-33]
"Called ... to be conformed to the image
of his Son" (Rom 8:28-29): God's glory
shines on the face of man [34-36]
"Whoever lives and believes in me shall
never die" (Jn 11:26): the gift of eternal
life [37-38]
"From man in regard to his fellow man
I will demand an accounting" (Gen 9:5):
reverence and love for every human life [39-41]
"Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the
earth and subdue it" (Gen 1:28): man's
responsibility for life [42-43]
"For you formed my inmost being"
(Ps 139:13): the dignity of the unborn child
[44-45]
"I kept my faith even when I said, 'I
am greatly afflicted"' (Ps 116:10): life
in old age and at times of suffering [46-47]
"All who hold her fast will live"
(Bar 4:1): from the law of Sinai to the gift
of the Spirit [48-49]
"They shall look on him whom they have
pierced" (Jn 19:37): the Gospel of life
is brought to fulfilment on the tree of the
Cross [50-51]
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]
"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
[53-57]
"Your eyes beheld my unformed substance"
(Ps 139:16): the unspeakable crime of abortion
[58-63]
"It is I who bring both death and life"
(Dt 32:39): the tragedy of euthanasia [64-67]
"We must obey God rather than men"
(Acts 5:29): civil law and the moral law [68-74]
"You shall love your neighbour as yourself"
(Lk 10:27): "promote" life [75-77]
CHAPTER IV
YOU DID IT TO ME
FOR A NEW CULTURE OF HUMAN LIFE
"You are God's own people, that you may
declare the wonderful deeds of him who called
you out of darkness into his marvellous light"
(1 Pet 2:9): a people of life and for life [78-79]
"That which we have seen and heard we
proclaim also to you" (1 Jn 1:3): proclaiming
the Gospel of life [80-82]
"I give you thanks that I am fearfully,
wonderfully made" (Ps 139:14): celebrating
the Gospel of life [83-86]
"What does it profit, my brethren, if
a man says he has faith but has not works?"
(Jas 2:14): serving the Gospel of life [87-91]
"Your children will be like olive shoots
around your table" (Ps 128:3): the family
as the "sanctuary of life" [92-94]
"Walk as children of light" (Eph
5:8): bringing about a transformation of culture
[95-100]
"We are writing this that our joy may
be complete" (1 Jn 1:4): the Gospel of
life is for the whole of human society [101-102].
CONCLUSION
"A great portent appeared in heaven, a
woman clothed with the sun" (Rev 12:1):
the motherhood of Mary and of the Church [103]
"And the dragon stood before the woman
... that he might devour her child when she
brought it forth" (Rev 12:4): life menaced
by the forces of evil [104]
"Death shall be no more" (Rev 21:4):
the splendour of the Resurrection [105]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EVANGELIUM VITAE
INTRODUCTION
1. THE GOSPEL OF LIFE is at
the heart of Jesus' message. Lovingly received
day after day by the Church, it is to be preached
with dauntless fidelity as "good news"
to the people of every age and culture.
At the dawn of salvation, it is the Birth of
a Child which is proclaimed as joyful news:
"I bring you good news of a great joy which
will come to all the people; for to you is born
this day in the city of David a Saviour, who
is. Christ the Lord" (Lk 2:10-11). The
source of this "great joy" is the
Birth of the Saviour; but Christmas also reveals
the full meaning of every human birth, and the
joy which accompanies the Birth of the Messiah
is thus seen to be the foundation and fulfilment
of joy at every child born into the world (cf.
Jn 16:21).
When he presents the heart of his redemptive
mission, Jesus says: "I came that they
may have life, and have it abundantly"
(Jn 10:10). In truth, he is referring to that
"new" and "eternal" life
which consists in communion with the Father,
to which every person is freely called in the
Son by the power of the Sanctifying Spirit.
It is precisely in this "life" that
all the aspects and stages of human life achieve
their full significance.
The incomparable worth of the human person
2. Man is called to a fullness
of life which far exceeds the dimensions of
his earthly existence, because it consists in
sharing the very life of God. The loftiness
of this supernatural vocation reveals the greatness
and the inestimable value of human life even
in its temporal phase. Life in time, in fact,
is the fundamental condition, the initial stage
and an integral part of the entire unified process
of human existence. It is a process which, unexpectedly
and undeservedly, is enlightened by the promise
and renewed by the gift of divine life, which
will reach its full realization in eternity
(cf. 1 Jn 3:1-2). At the same time, it is precisely
this supernatural calling which highlights the
relative character of each individual's earthly
life. After all, life on earth is not an "ultimate"
but a "penultimate" reality; even
so, it remains a sacred reality entrusted to
us, to be preserved with a sense of responsibility
and brought to perfection in love and in the
gift of ourselves to God and to our brothers
and sisters.
The Church knows that this Gospel of life,
which she has received from her Lord,[1] has
a profound and persuasive echo in the heart
of every person--believer and non-believer alike--because
it marvellously fulfils all the heart's expectations
while infinitely surpassing them. Even in the
midst of difficulties and uncertainties, every
person sincerely open to truth and goodness
can, by the light of reason and the hidden action
of grace, come to recognize in the natural law
written in the heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15) the sacred
value of human life from its very beginning
until its end, and can affirm the right of every
human being to have this primary good respected
to the highest degree. Upon the recognition
of this right, every human community and the
political community itself are founded.
In a special way, believers in Christ must
defend and promote this right, aware as they
are of the wonderful truth recalled by the Second
Vatican Council: "By his incarnation the
Son of God has united himself in some fashion
with every human being".[2] This saving
event reveals to humanity not only the boundless
love of God who "so loved the world that
he gave his only Son" (Jn 3:16), but also
the incomparable value of every human person.
The Church, faithfully contemplating the mystery
of the Redemption, acknowledges this value with
ever new wonder.[3] She feels called to proclaim
to the people of all times this "Gospel",
the source of invincible hope and true joy for
every period of history. The Gospel of God's
love for man, the Gospel of the dignity of the
person and the Gospel of life are a single and
indivisible Gospel.
For this reason, man--living man--represents
the primary and fundamental way for the Church.[4]
New threats to human life
3. Every individual, precisely
by reason of the mystery of the Word of God
who was made flesh (cf. Jn 1:14), is entrusted
to the maternal care of the Church. Therefore
every threat to human dignity and life must
necessarily be felt in the Church's very heart;
it cannot but affect her at the core of her
faith in the Redemptive Incarnation of the Son
of God, and engage her in her mission of proclaiming
the Gospel of life in all the world and to every
creature (cf. Mk 16:15).
Today this proclamation is especially pressing
because of the extraordinary increase and gravity
of threats to the life of individuals and peoples,
especially where life is weak and defenceless.
In addition to the ancient scourges of poverty,
hunger, endemic diseases, violence and war,
new threats are emerging on an alarmingly vast
scale.
The Second Vatican Council, in a passage which
retains all its relevance today, forcefully
condemned a number of crimes and attacks against
human life. Thirty years later, taking up the
words of the Council and with the same forcefulness
I repeat that condemnation in the name of the
whole Church, certain that I am interpreting
the genuine sentiment of every upright conscience:
"Whatever is opposed to life itself, such
as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia,
or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates
the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation,
torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts
to coerce the will itself; whatever insults
human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions,
arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery,
prostitution, the selling of women and children;
as well as disgraceful working conditions, where
people are treated as mere instruments of gain
rather than as free and responsible persons;
all these things and others like them are infamies
indeed. They poison human society, and they
do more harm to those who practise them than
to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover,
they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator".[5]
4. Unfortunately, this disturbing
state of affairs, far from decreasing, is expanding:
with the new prospects opened up by scientific
and technological progress there arise new forms
of attacks on the dignity of the human being.
At the same time a new cultural climate is developing
and taking hold, which gives crimes against
life a new and--if possible--even more sinister
character, giving rise to further grave concern:
broad sectors of public opinion justify certain
crimes against life in the name of the rights
of individual freedom, and on this basis they
claim not only exemption from punishment but
even authorization by the State, so that these
things can be done with total freedom and indeed
with the free assistance of health-care systems.
All this is causing a profound change in the
way in which life and relationships between
people are considered. The fact that legislation
in many countries, perhaps even departing from
basic principles of their Constitutions, has
determined not to punish these practices against
life, and even to make them altogether legal,
is both a disturbing symptom and a significant
cause of grave moral decline. Choices once unanimously
considered criminal and rejected by the common
moral sense are gradually becoming socially
acceptable. Even certain sectors of the medical
profession, which by its calling is directed
to the defence and care of human life, are increasingly
willing to carry out these acts against the
person. In this way the very nature of the medical
profession is distorted and contradicted, and
the dignity of those who practise it is degraded.
In such a cultural and legislative situation,
the serious demographic, social and family problems
which weigh upon many of the world's peoples
and which require responsible and effective
attention from national and international bodies,
are left open to false and deceptive solutions,
opposed to the truth and the good of persons
and nations.
The end result of this is tragic: not only
is the fact of the destruction of so many human
lives still to be born or in their final stage
extremely grave and disturbing, but no less
grave and disturbing is the fact that conscience
itself, darkened as it were by such widespread
conditioning, is finding it increasingly difficult
to distinguish between good and evil in what
concerns the basic value of human life.
In communion with all the Bishops of the world
5. The Extraordinary Consistory
of Cardinals held in Rome on 4-7 April 1991
was devoted to the problem of the threats to
human life in our day. After a thorough and
detailed discussion of the problem and of the
challenges it poses to the entire human family
and in particular to the Christian community,
the Cardinals unanimously asked me to reaffirm
with the authority of the Successor of Peter
the value of human life and its inviolability,
in the light of present circumstances and attacks
threatening it today.
In response to this request, at Pentecost in
1991 I wrote a personal letter to each of my
Brother Bishops asking them, in the spirit of
episcopal collegiality, to offer me their cooperation
in drawing up a specific document.[6] I am deeply
grateful to all the Bishops who replied and
provided me with valuable facts, suggestions
and proposals. In so doing they bore witness
to their unanimous desire to share in the doctrinal
and pastoral mission of the Church with regard
to the Gospel of life.
In that same letter, written shortly after
the celebration of the centenary of the Encyclical
Rerum Novarum, I drew everyone's attention to
this striking analogy: "Just as a century
ago it was the working classes which were oppressed
in their fundamental rights, and the Church
very courageously came to their defence by proclaiming
the sacrosanct rights of the worker as a person,
so now, when another category of persons is
being oppressed in the fundamental right to
life, the Church feels in duty bound to speak
out with the same courage on behalf of those
who have no voice. Hers is always the evangelical
cry in defence of the world's poor, those who
are threatened and despised and whose human
rights are violated".[7]
Today there exists a great multitude of weak
and defenceless human beings, unborn children
in particular, whose fundamental right to life
is being trampled upon. If, at the end of the
last century, the Church could not be silent
about the injustices of those times, still less
can she be silent today, when the social injustices
of the past, unfortunately not yet overcome,
are being compounded in many regions of the
world by still more grievous forms of injustice
and oppression, even if these are being presented
as elements of progress in view of a new world
order.
The present Encyclical, the fruit of the cooperation
of the Episcopate of every country of the world,
is therefore meant to be a precise and vigorous
reaffirmation of the value of human life and
its inviolability, and at the same time a pressing
appeal addressed to each and every person, in
the name of God: respect, protect, love and
serve life, every human life! Only in this direction
will you find justice, development, true freedom,
peace and happiness!
May these words reach all the sons and daughters
of the Church! May they reach all people of
good will who are concerned for the good of
every man and woman and for the destiny of the
whole of society!
6. In profound communion with
all my brothers and sisters in the faith, and
inspired by genuine friendship towards all,
I wish to meditate upon once more and proclaim
the Gospel of life, the splendour of truth which
enlightens consciences, the clear light which
corrects the darkened gaze, and the unfailing
source of faithfulness and steadfastness in
facing the ever new challenges which we meet
along our path.
As I recall the powerful experience of the
Year of the Family, as if to complete the Letter
which I wrote "to every particular family
in every part of the world",[8] I look
with renewed confidence to every household and
I pray that at every level a general commitment
to support the family will reappear and be strengthened,
so that today too--even amid so many difficulties
and serious threats--the family will always
remain, in accordance with God's plan, the "sanctuary
of life".[9]
To all the members of the Church, the people
of life and for life, I make this most urgent
appeal, that together we may offer this world
of ours new signs of hope, and work to ensure
that justice and solidarity will increase and
that a new culture of human life will be affirmed,
for the building of an authentic civilization
of truth and love.
CHAPTER I
THE VOICE OF YOUR BROTHER'S BLOOD CRIES
TO ME FROM THE GROUND
PRESENT-DAY THREATS TO HUMAN LIFE
"Cain rose up against his brother Abel,
and killed him" (Gen 4:8): the roots of
violence against life
7. "God did not make
death, and he does not delight in the death
of the living. For he has created all things
that they might exist... God created man for
incorruption, and made him in the image of his
own eternity, but through the devil's envy death
entered the world, and those who belong to his
party experience it" (Wis 1:13-14; 2:23-24).
The Gospel of life, proclaimed in the beginning
when man was created in the image of God for
a destiny of full and perfect life (cf. Gen
2:7; Wis 9:2-3), is contradicted by the painful
experience of death which enters the world and
casts its shadow of meaninglessness over man's
entire existence. Death came into the world
as a result of the devil's envy (cf. Gen 3:1,4-5)
and the sin of our first parents (cf. Gen 2:17,
3:17-19). And death entered it in a violent
way, through the killing of Abel by his brother
Cain: "And when they were in the field,
Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and killed
him" (Gen 4:8).
This first murder is presented with singular
eloquence in a page of the Book of Genesis which
has universal significance: it is a page rewritten
daily, with inexorable and degrading frequency,
in the book of human history.
Let us re-read together this biblical account
which, despite its archaic structure and its
extreme simplicity, has much to teach us.
"Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain
a tiller of the ground. In the course of time
Cain brought to the Lord an offering of the
fruit of the ground, and Abel brought of the
firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions.
And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering,
but for Cain and his offering he had not regard.
So Cain was very angry, and his countenance
fell. The Lord said to Cain, 'Why are you angry
and why has your countenance fallen? If you
do well, will you not be accepted? And if you
do not do well, sin is crouching at the door;
its desire is for you, but you must master it'.
"Cain said to Abel his brother, 'Let us
go out to the field'. And when they were in
the field, Cain rose up against his brother
Abel, and killed him. Then the Lord said to
Cain, 'Where is Abel your brother?' He said,
I do not know; am I my brother's keeper?' And
the Lord said, 'What have you done? The voice
of your brother's blood is crying to me from
the ground. And now you are cursed from the
ground, which has opened its mouth to receive
your brother's blood from your hand. When you
till the ground, it shall no longer yield to
you its strength; you shall be a fugitive and
a wanderer on the earth'. Cain said to the Lord,
'My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold,
you have driven me this day away from the ground;
and from your face I shall be hidden; and I
shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth,
and whoever finds me will slay me'. Then the
Lord said to him, 'Not so! If any one slays
Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold'.
And the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest any who
came upon him should kill him. Then Cain went
away from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt
in the land of Nod, east of Eden" (Gen
4:2-16).
8. Cain was "very angry"
and his countenance "fell" because
"the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering"
(Gen 4:4-5). The biblical text does not reveal
the reason why God prefers Abel's sacrifice
to Cain's. It clearly shows however that God,
although preferring Abel's gift, does not interrupt
his dialogue with Cain. He admonishes him, reminding
him of his freedom in the face of evil: man
is in no way predestined to evil. Certainly,
like Adam, he is tempted by the malevolent force
of sin which, like a wild beast, lies in wait
at the door of his heart, ready to leap on its
prey. But Cain remains free in the face of sin.
He can and must overcome it: "Its desire
is for you, but you must master it" (Gen
4:7).
Envy and anger have the upper hand over the
Lord's warning, and so Cain attacks his own
brother and kills him. As we read in the Catechism
of the Catholic Church: "In the account
of Abel's murder by his brother Cain, Scripture
reveals the presence of anger and envy in man,
consequences of original sin, from the beginning
of human history. Man has become the enemy of
his fellow man"[10]
Brother kills brother. Like the first fratricide,
every murder is a violation of the "spiritual"
kinship uniting mankind in one great family,[11]
in which all share the same fundamental good:
equal personal dignity. Not infrequently the
kinship "of flesh and blood" is also
violated; for example when threats to life arise
within the relationship between parents and
children, such as happens in abortion or when,
in the wider context of family or kinship, euthanasia
is encouraged or practised.
At the root of every act of violence against
one's neighbour there is a concession to the
"thinking" of the evil one, the one
who "was a murderer from the beginning"
(Jn 8:44). As the Apostle John reminds us: "For
this is the message which you have heard from
the beginning, that we should love one another,
and not be like Cain who was of the evil one
and murdered his brother" (1 Jn 3:11-12).
Cain's killing of his brother at the very dawn
of history is thus a sad witness of how evil
spreads with amazing speed: man's revolt against
God in the earthly paradise is followed by the
deadly combat of man against man.
After the crime, God intervenes to avenge the
one killed. Before God, who asks him about the
fate of Abel, Cain, instead of showing remorse
and apologizing, arrogantly eludes the question:
"I do not know; am I my brother's keeper?"
(Gen 4:9). "I do not know": Cain tries
to cover up his crime with a lie. This was and
still is the case, when all kinds of ideologies
try to justify and disguise the most atrocious
crimes against human beings. "Am I my brother's
keeper?": Cain does not wish to think about
his brother and refuses to accept the responsibility
which every person has towards others. We cannot
but think of today's tendency for people to
refuse to accept responsibility for their brothers
and sisters. Symptoms of this trend include
the lack of solidarity towards society's weakest
members--such as the elderly, the infirm, immigrants,
children--and the indifference frequently found
in relations between the world's peoples even
when basic values such as survival, freedom
and peace are involved.
9. But God cannot leave the
crime unpunished: from the ground on which it
has been spilt, the blood of the one murdered
demands that God should render justice (cf.
Gen 37:26; Is 26:21; Ez 24:7-8). From this text
the Church has taken the name of the "sins
which cry to God for justice", and, first
among them, she has included wilful murder.[12]
For the Jewish people, as for many peoples of
antiquity, blood is the source of life. Indeed
"the blood is the life" (Dt 12:23),
and life, especially human life, belongs only
to God: for this reason whoever attacks human
life, in some way attacks God himself.
Cain is cursed by God and also by the earth,
which will deny him its fruit (cf. Gen 4: 12).
He is punished: he will live in the wilderness
and the desert. Murderous violence profoundly
changes man's environment. From being the "garden
of Eden" (Gen 2:15), a place of plenty,
of harmonious interpersonal relationships and
of friendship with God, the earth becomes "the
land of Nod" (Gen 4:16), a place of scarcity,
loneliness and separation from God. Cain will
be "a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth"
(Gen 4:14): uncertainty and restlessness will
follow him forever.
And yet God, who is always merciful even when
he punishes, "put a mark on Cain, lest
any who came upon him should kill him"
(Gen 4:15). He thus gave him a distinctive sign,
not to condemn him to the hatred of others,
but to protect and defend him from those wishing
to kill him, even out of a desire to avenge
Abel's death. Not even a murderer loses his
personal dignity, and God himself pledges to
guarantee this. And it is precisely here that
the paradoxical mystery of the merciful justice
of God is shown forth. As Saint Ambrose writes:
"Once the crime is admitted at the very
inception of this sinful act of parricide, then
the divine law of God's mercy should be immediately
extended. If punishment is forthwith inflicted
on the accused, then men in the exercise of
justice would in no way observe patience and
moderation, but would straightaway condemn the
defendant to punishment.... God drove Cain out
of his presence and sent him into exile far
away from his native land, so that he passed
from a life of human kindness to one which was
more akin to the rude existence of a wild beast.
God, who preferred the correction rather than
the death of a sinner, did not desire that a
homicide be punished by the exaction of another
act of homicide".[13]
"What have you done?" (Gen 4:10):
the eclipse of the value of life
10. The Lord said to Cain:
"What have you done? The voice of your
brother's blood is crying to me from the ground"
(Gen 4:10). The voice of the blood shed by men
continues to cry out, from generation to generation,
in ever new and different ways.
The Lord's question: "What have you done?",
which Cain cannot escape, is addressed also
to the people of today, to make them realize
the extent and gravity of the attacks against
life which continue to mark human history; to
make them discover what causes these attacks
and feeds them; and to make them ponder seriously
the consequences which derive from these attacks
for the existence of individuals and peoples.
Some threats come from nature itself, but they
are made worse by the culpable indifference
and negligence of those who could in some cases
remedy them. Others are the result of situations
of violence, hatred and conflicting interests,
which lead people to attack others through murder,
war, slaughter and genocide.
And how can we fail to consider the violence
against life done to millions of human beings,
especially children, who are forced into poverty,
malnutrition and hunger because of an unjust
distribution of resources between peoples and
between social classes? And what of the violence
inherent not only in wars as such but in the
scandalous arms trade, which spawns the many
armed conflicts which stain our world with blood?
What of the spreading of death caused by reckless
tampering with the world's ecological balance,
by the criminal spread of drugs, or by the promotion
of certain kinds of sexual activity which, besides
being morally unacceptable, also involve grave
risks to life? It is impossible to catalogue
completely the vast array of threats to human
life, so many are the forms, whether explicit
or hidden, in which they appear today!
11. Here though we shall concentrate
particular attention on another category of
attacks, affecting life in its earliest and
in its final stages, attacks which present new
characteristics with respect to the past and
which raise questions of extraordinary seriousness.
It is not only that in generalized opinion these
attacks tend no longer to be considered as "crimes";
paradoxically they assume the nature of "rights",
to the point that the State is called upon to
give them legal recognition and to make them
available through the free services of health-care
personnel. Such attacks strike human life at
the time of its greatest frailty, when it lacks
any means of self-defence. Even more serious
is the fact that, most often, those attacks
are carried out in the very heart of and with
the complicity of the family--the family which
by its nature is called to be the "sanctuary
of life".
How did such a situation come about? Many different
factors have to be taken into account. In the
background there is the profound crisis of culture,
which generates scepticism in relation to the
very foundations of knowledge and ethics, and
which makes it increasingly difficult to grasp
clearly the meaning of what man is, the meaning
of his rights and his duties. Then there are
all kinds of existential and interpersonal difficulties,
made worse by the complexity of a society in
which individuals, couples and families are
often left alone with their problems. There
are situations of acute poverty, anxiety or
frustration in which the struggle to make ends
meet, the presence of unbearable pain, or instances
of violence, especially against women, make
the choice to defend and promote life so demanding
as sometimes to reach the point of heroism.
All this explains, at least in part, how the
value of life can today undergo a kind of "eclipse",
even though conscience does not cease to point
to it as a sacred and inviolable value, as is
evident in the tendency to disguise certain
crimes against life in its early or final stages
by using innocuous medical terms which distract
attention from the fact that what is involved
is the right to life of an actual human person.
12. In fact, while the climate
of widespread moral uncertainty can in some
way be explained by the multiplicity and gravity
of today's social problems, and these can sometimes
mitigate the subjective responsibility of individuals,
it is no less true that we are confronted by
an even larger reality, which can be described
as a veritable structure of sin. This reality
is characterized by the emergence of a culture
which denies solidarity and in many cases takes
the form of a veritable "culture of death".
This culture is actively fostered by powerful
cultural, economic and political currents which
encourage an idea of society excessively concerned
with efficiency. Looking at the situation from
this point of view, it is possible to speak
in a certain sense of a war of the powerful
against the weak: a life which would require
greater acceptance, love and care is considered
useless, or held to be an intolerable burden,
and is therefore rejected in one way or another.
A person who, because of illness, handicap or,
more simply, just by existing, compromises the
well-being or life-style of those who are more
favoured tends to be looked upon as an enemy
to be resisted or eliminated. In this way a
kind of "conspiracy against life"
is unleashed. This conspiracy involves not only
individuals in their personal, family or group
relationships, but goes far beyond, to the point
of damaging and distorting, at the international
level, relations between peoples and States.
13. In order to facilitate
the spread of abortion, enormous sums of money
have been invested and continue to be invested
in the production of pharmaceutical products
which make it possible to kill the fetus in
the mother's womb without recourse to medical
assistance. On this point, scientific research
itself seems to be almost exclusively preoccupied
with developing products which are ever more
simple and effective in suppressing life and
which at the same time are capable of removing
abortion from any kind of control or social
responsibility.
It is frequently asserted that contraception,
if made safe and available to all, is the most
effective remedy against abortion. The Catholic
Church is then accused of actually promoting
abortion, because she obstinately continues
to teach the moral unlawfulness of contraception.
When looked at carefully, this objection is
clearly unfounded. It may be that many people
use contraception with a view to excluding the
subsequent temptation of abortion. But the negative
values inherent in the "contraceptive mentality"--which
is very different from responsible parenthood,
lived in respect for the full truth of the conjugal
act--are such that they in fact strengthen this
temptation when an unwanted life is conceived.
Indeed, the pro-abortion culture is especially
strong precisely where the Church's teaching
on contraception is rejected. Certainly, from
the moral point of view contraception and abortion
are specifically different evils: the former
contradicts the full truth of the sexual act
as the proper expression of conjugal love, while
the latter destroys the life of a human being;
the former is opposed to the virtue of chastity
in marriage, the latter is opposed to the virtue
of justice and directly violates the divine
commandment "You shall not kill".
But despite their differences of nature and
moral gravity, contraception and abortion are
often closely connected, as fruits of the same
tree. It is true that in many cases contraception
and even abortion are practised under the pressure
of real-life difficulties, which nonetheless
can never exonerate from striving to observe
God's law fully. Still, in very many other instances
such practices are rooted in a hedonistic mentality
unwilling to accept responsibility in matters
of sexuality, and they imply a self-centered
concept of freedom, which regards procreation
as an obstacle to personal fulfilment. The life
which could result from a sexual encounter thus
becomes an enemy to be avoided at all costs,
and abortion becomes the only possible decisive
response to failed contraception.
The close connection which exists, in mentality,
between the practice of contraception and that
of abortion is becoming increasingly obvious.
It is being demonstrated in an alarming way
by the development of chemical products, intrauterine
devices and vaccines which, distributed with
the same ease as contraceptives, really act
as abortifacients in the very early stages of
the development of the life of the new human
being.
14. The various techniques
of artificial reproduction, which would seem
to be at the service of life and which are frequently
used with this intention, actually open the
door to new threats against life. Apart from
the fact that they are morally unacceptable,
since they separate procreation from the fully
human context of the conjugal act,[14] these
techniques have a high rate of failure: not
just failure in relation to fertilization but
with regard to the subsequent development of
the embryo, which is exposed to the risk of
death, generally within a very short space of
time. Furthermore, the number of embryos produced
is often greater than that needed for implantation
in the woman's womb, and these so-called "spare
embryos" are then destroyed or used for
research which, under the pretext of scientific
or medical progress, in fact reduces human life
to the level of simple "biological material"
to be freely disposed of.
Prenatal diagnosis, which presents no moral
objections if carried out in order to identify
the medical treatment which may be needed by
the child in the womb, all too often becomes
an opportunity for proposing and procuring an
abortion. This is eugenic abortion, justified
in public opinion on the basis of a mentality--mistakenly
held to be consistent with the demands of "therapeutic
interventions"--which accepts life only
under certain conditions and rejects it when
it is affected by any limitation, handicap or
illness.
Following this same logic, the point has been
reached where the most basic care, even nourishment,
is denied to babies born with serious handicaps
or illnesses. The contemporary scene, moreover,
is becoming even more alarming by reason of
the proposals, advanced here and there, to justify
even infanticide, following the same arguments
used to justify the right to abortion. In this
way, we revert to a state of barbarism which
one hoped had been left behind forever.
15. Threats which are no less
serious hang over the incurably ill and the
dying. In a social and cultural context which
makes it more difficult to face and accept suffering,
the temptation becomes all the greater to resolve
the problem of suffering by eliminating it at
the root, by hastening death so that it occurs
at the moment considered most suitable.
Various considerations usually contribute to
such a decision, all of which converge in the
same terrible outcome. In the sick person the
sense of anguish, of severe discomfort, and
even of desperation brought on by intense and
prolonged suffering can be a decisive factor.
Such a situation can threaten the already fragile
equilibrium of an individual's personal and
family life, with the result that, on the one
hand, the sick person, despite the help of increasingly
effective medical and social assistance, risks
feeling overwhelmed by his or her own frailty;
and on the other hand, those close to the sick
person can be moved by an understandable even
if misplaced compassion. All this is aggravated
by a cultural climate which fails to perceive
any meaning or value in suffering, but rather
considers suffering the epitome of evil, to
be eliminated at all costs. This is especially
the case in the absence of a religious outlook
which could help to provide a positive understanding
of the mystery of suffering.
On a more general level, there exists in contemporary
culture a certain Promethean attitude which
leads people to think that they can control
life and death by taking the decisions about
them into their own hands. What really happens
in this case is that the individual is overcome
and crushed by a death deprived of any prospect
of meaning or hope. We see a tragic expression
of all this in the spread of euthanasia--disguised
and surreptitious, or practised openly and even
legally. As well as for reasons of a misguided
pity at the sight of the patient's suffering,
euthanasia is sometimes justified by the utilitarian
motive of avoiding costs which bring no return
and which weigh heavily on society. Thus it
is proposed to eliminate malformed babies, the
severely handicapped, the disabled, the elderly,
especially when they are not self-sufficient,
and the terminally ill. Nor can we remain silent
in the face of other more furtive, but no less
serious and real, forms of euthanasia. These
could occur for example when, in order to increase
the availability of organs for transplants,
organs are removed without respecting objective
and adequate criteria which verify the death
of the donor.
16. Another present-day phenomenon,
frequently used to justify threats and attacks
against life, is the demographic question. This
question arises in different ways in different
parts of the world. In the rich and developed
countries there is a disturbing decline or collapse
of the birthrate. The poorer countries, on the
other hand, generally have a high rate of population
growth, difficult to sustain in the context
of low economic and social development, and
especially where there is extreme underdevelopment.
In the face of overpopulation in the poorer
countries, instead of forms of global intervention
at the international level--serious family and
social policies, programmes of cultural development
and of fair production and distribution of resources--anti-birth
policies continue to be enacted.
Contraception, sterilization and abortion are
certainly part of the reason why in some cases
there is a sharp decline in the birthrate. It
is not difficult to be tempted to use the same
methods and attacks against life also where
there is a situation of "demographic explosion".
The Pharaoh of old, haunted by the presence
and increase of the children of Israel, submitted
them to every kind of oppression and ordered
that every male child born of the Hebrew women
was to be killed (cf. Ex 1:7-22). Today not
a few of the powerful of the earth act in the
same way. They too are haunted by the current
demographic growth, and fear that the most prolific
and poorest peoples represent a threat for the
well-being and peace of their own countries.
Consequently, rather than wishing to face and
solve these serious problems with respect for
the dignity of individuals and families and
for every person's inviolable right to life,
they prefer to promote and impose by whatever
means a massive programme of birth control.
Even the economic help which they would be ready
to give is unjustly made conditional on the
acceptance of an anti-birth policy.
17. Humanity today offers
us a truly alarming spectacle, if we consider
not only how extensively attacks on life are
spreading but also their unheard-of numerical
proportion, and the fact that they receive widespread
and powerful support from a broad consensus
on the part of society, from widespread legal
approval and the involvement of certain sectors
of health-care personnel.
As I emphatically stated at Denver, on the
occasion of the Eighth World Youth Day, "with
time the threats against life have not grown
weaker. They are taking on vast proportions.
They are not only threats coming from the outside,
from the forces of nature or the 'Cains' who
kill the 'Abels'; no, they are scientifically
and systematically programmed threats. The twentieth
century will have been an era of massive attacks
on life, an endless series of wars and a continual
taking of innocent human life. False prophets
and false teachers have had the greatest success".[15]
Aside from intentions, which can be varied and
perhaps can seem convincing at times, especially
if presented in the name of solidarity, we are
in fact faced by an objective "conspiracy
against life", involving even international
Institutions, engaged in encouraging and carrying
out actual campaigns to make contraception,
sterilization and abortion widely available.
Nor can it be denied that the mass media are
often implicated in this conspiracy, by lending
credit to that culture which presents recourse
to contraception, sterilization, abortion and
even euthanasia as a mark of progress and a
victory of freedom, while depicting as enemies
of freedom and progress those positions which
are unreservedly pro-life.
"Am I my brother's keeper?" (Gen
4:9): a perverse idea of freedom
18. The panorama described
needs to be understood not only in terms of
the phenomena of death which characterize it
but also in the variety of causes which determine
it. The Lord's question: "What have you
done?" (Gen 4:10), seems almost like an
invitation addressed to Cain to go beyond the
material dimension of his murderous gesture,
in order to recognize in it all the gravity
of the motives which occasioned it and the consequences
which result from it.
Decisions that go against life sometimes arise
from difficult or even tragic situations of
profound suffering, loneliness, a total lack
of economic prospects, depression and anxiety
about the future. Such circumstances can mitigate
even to a notable degree subjective responsibility
and the consequent culpability of those who
make these choices which in themselves are evil.
But today the problem goes far beyond the necessary
recognition of these personal situations. It
is a problem which exists at the cultural, social
and political level, where it reveals its more
sinister and disturbing aspect in the tendency,
ever more widely shared, to interpret the above
crimes against life as legitimate expressions
of individual freedom, to be acknowledged and
protected as actual rights.
In this way, and with tragic consequences,
a long historical process is reaching a turning-point.
The process which once led to discovering the
idea of "human rights"-- rights inherent
in every person and prior to any Constitution
and State legislation--is today marked by a
surprising contradiction. Precisely in an age
when the inviolable rights of the person are
solemnly proclaimed and the value of life is
publicly affirmed, the very right to life is
being denied or trampled upon, especially at
the more significant moments of existence: the
moment of birth and the moment of death.
On the one hand, the various declarations of
human rights and the many initiatives inspired
by these declarations show that at the global
level there is a growing moral sensitivity,
more alert to acknowledging the value and dignity
of every individual as a human being, without
any distinction of race, nationality, religion,
political opinion or social class.
On the other hand, these noble proclamations
are unfortunately contradicted by a tragic repudiation
of them in practice. This denial is still more
distressing, indeed more scandalous, precisely
because it is occurring in a society which makes
the affirmation and protection of human rights
its primary objective and its boast. How can
these repeated affirmations of principle be
reconciled with the continual increase and widespread
justification of attacks on human life? How
can we reconcile these declarations with the
refusal to accept those who are weak and needy,
or elderly, or those who have just been conceived?
These attacks go directly against respect for
life and they represent a direct threat to the
entire culture of human rights. It is a threat
capable, in the end, of jeopardizing the very
meaning of democratic coexistence: rather than
societies of "people living together",
our cities risk becoming societies of people
who are rejected, marginalized, uprooted and
oppressed. If we then look at the wider worldwide
perspective, how can we fail to think that the
very affirmation of the rights of individuals
and peoples made in distinguished international
assemblies is a merely futile exercise of rhetoric,
if we fail to unmask the selfishness of the
rich countries which exclude poorer countries
from access to development or make such access
dependent on arbitrary prohibitions against
procreation, setting up an opposition between
development and man himself? Should we not question
the very economic models often adopted by States
which, also as a result of international pressures
and forms of conditioning, cause and aggravate
situations of injustice and violence in which
the life of whole peoples is degraded and trampled
upon?
19. What are the roots of
this remarkable contradiction?
We can find them in an overall assessment of
a cultural and moral nature, beginning with
the mentality which carries the concept of subjectivity
to an extreme and even distorts it, and recognizes
as a subject of rights only the person who enjoys
full or at least incipient autonomy and who
emerges from a state of total dependence on
others. But how can we reconcile this approach
with the exaltation of man as a being who is
"not to be used"? The theory of human
rights is based precisely on the affirmation
that the human person, unlike animals and things,
cannot be subjected to domination by others.
We must also mention the mentality which tends
to equate personal dignity with the capacity
for verbal and explicit, or at least perceptible,
communication. It is clear that on the basis
of these presuppositions there is no place in
the world for anyone who, like the unborn or
the dying, is a weak element in the social structure,
or for anyone who appears completely at the
mercy of others and radically dependent on them,
and can only communicate through the silent
language of a profound sharing of affection.
In this case it is force which becomes the criterion
for choice and action in interpersonal relations
and in social life. But this is the exact opposite
of what a State ruled by law, as a community
in which the "reasons of force" are
replaced by the "force of reason",
historically intended to affirm.
At another level, the roots of the contradiction
between the solemn affirmation of human rights
and their tragic denial in practice lies in
a notion of freedom which exalts the isolated
individual in an absolute way, and gives no
place to solidarity, to openness to others and
service of them. While it is true that the taking
of life not yet born or in its final stages
is sometimes marked by a mistaken sense of altruism
and human compassion, it cannot be denied that
such a culture of death, taken as a whole, betrays
a completely individualistic concept of freedom,
which ends up by becoming the freedom of "the
strong" against the weak who have no choice
but to submit.
It is precisely in this sense that Cain's answer
to the Lord's question: "Where is Abel
your brother?" can be interpreted: "I
do not know; am I my brother's keeper?"
(Gen 4:9). Yes, every man is his "brother's
keeper", because God entrusts us to one
another. And it is also in view of this entrusting
that God gives everyone freedom, a freedom which
possesses an inherently relational dimension.
This is a great gift of the Creator, placed
as it is at the service of the person and of
his fulfilment through the gift of self and
openness to others; but when freedom is made
absolute in an individualistic way, it is emptied
of its original content, and its very meaning
and dignity are contradicted.
There is an even more profound aspect which
needs to be emphasized: freedom negates and
destroys itself, and becomes a factor leading
to the destruction of others, when it no longer
recognizes and respects its essential link with
the truth. When freedom, out of a desire to
emancipate itself from all forms of tradition
and authority, shuts out even the most obvious
evidence of an objective and universal truth,
which is the foundation of personal and social
life, then the person ends up by no longer taking
as the sole and indisputable point of reference
for his own choices the truth about good and
evil, but only his subjective and changeable
opinion or, indeed, his selfish interest and
whim.
20. This view of freedom leads
to a serious distortion of life in society.
If the promotion of the self is understood in
terms of absolute autonomy, people inevitably
reach the point of rejecting one another. Everyone
else is considered an enemy from whom one has
to defend oneself. Thus society becomes a mass
of individuals placed side by side, but without
any mutual bonds. Each one wishes to assert
himself independently of the other and in fact
intends to make his own interests prevail. Still,
in the face of other people's analogous interests,
some kind of compromise must be found, if one
wants a society in which the maximum possible
freedom is guaranteed to each individual. In
this way, any reference to common values and
to a truth absolutely binding on everyone is
lost, and social life ventures on to the shifting
sands of complete relativism. At that point,
everything is negotiable, everything is open
to bargaining: even the first of the fundamental
rights, the right to life.
This is what is happening also at the level
of politics and government: the original and
inalienable right to life is questioned or denied
on the basis of a parliamentary vote or the
will of one part of the people--even if it is
the majority. This is the sinister result of
a relativism which reigns unopposed: the "right"
ceases to be such, because it is no longer firmly
founded on the inviolable dignity of the person,
but is made subject to the will of the stronger
part. In this way democracy, contradicting its
own principles, effectively moves towards a
form of totalitarianism. The State is no longer
the "common home" where all can live
together on the basis of principles of fundamental
equality, but is transformed into a tyrant State,
which arrogates to itself the right to dispose
of the life of the weakest and most defenceless
members, from the unborn child to the elderly,
in the name of a public interest which is really
nothing but the interest of one part. The appearance
of the strictest respect for legality is maintained,
at least when the laws permitting abortion and
euthanasia are the result of a ballot in accordance
with what are generally seen as the rules of
democracy. Really, what we have here is only
the tragic caricature of legality; the democratic
ideal, which is only truly such when it acknowledges
and safeguards the dignity of every human person,
is betrayed in its very foundations: "How
is it still possible to speak of the dignity
of every human person when the killing of the
weakest and most innocent is permitted? In the
name of what justice is the most unjust of discriminations
practised: some individuals are held to be deserving
of defence and others are denied that dignity?"[16]
When this happens, the process leading to the
breakdown of a genuinely human co-existence
and the disintegration of the State itself has
already begun.
To claim the right to abortion, infanticide
and euthanasia, and to recognize that right
in law, means to attribute to human freedom
a perverse and evil significance: that of an
absolute power over others and against others.
This is the death of true freedom: "Truly,
truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin
is a slave to sin" (Jn 8:34).
"And from your face I shall be hidden"
(Gen 4:14): the eclipse of the sense of God
and of man
21. In seeking the deepest
roots of the struggle between the "culture
of life" and the "culture of death",
we cannot restrict ourselves to the perverse
idea of freedom mentioned above. We have to
go to the heart of the tragedy being experienced
by modern man: the eclipse of the sense of God
and of man, typical of a social and cultural
climate dominated by secularism, which, with
its ubiquitous tentacles, succeeds at times
in putting Christian communities themselves
to the test. Those who allow themselves to be
influenced by this climate easily fall into
a sad vicious circle: when the sense of God
is lost, there is also a tendency to lose the
sense of man, of his dignity and his life; in
turn, the systematic violation of the moral
law, especially in the serious matter of respect
for human life and its dignity, produces a kind
of progressive darkening of the capacity to
discern God's living and saving presence.
Once again we can gain insight from the story
of Abel's murder by his brother. After the curse
imposed on him by God, Cain thus addresses the
Lord: "My punishment is greater than I
can bear. Behold, you have driven me this day
away from the ground; and from your face I shall
be hidden; and I shall be a fugitive and wanderer
on the earth, and whoever finds me will slay
me" (Gen 4:13-14). Cain is convinced that
his sin will not obtain pardon from the Lord
and that his inescapable destiny will be to
have to "hide his face" from him.
If Cain is capable of confessing that his fault
is "greater than he can bear", it
is because he is conscious of being in the presence
of God and before God's just judgment. It is
really only before the Lord that man can admit
his sin and recognize its full seriousness.
Such was the experience of David who, after
"having committed evil in the sight of
the Lord", and being rebuked by the Prophet
Nathan, exclaimed: "My offences truly I
know them; my sin is always before me. Against
you, you alone, have I sinned; what is evil
in your sight I have done" (Ps 51:5-6).
22. Consequently, when the
sense of God is lost, the sense of man is also
threatened and poisoned, as the Second Vatican
Council concisely states: "Without the
Creator the creature would disappear . . . But
when God is forgotten the creature itself grows
unintelligible".[17] Man is no longer able
to see himself as "mysteriously different"
from other earthly creatures; he regards himself
merely as one more living being, as an organism
which, at most, has reached a very high stage
of perfection. Enclosed in the narrow horizon
of his physical nature, he is somehow reduced
to being "a thing", and no longer
grasps th
