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",
