Evangelium Vitae
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 4:11-12). He is punished:
he will live in the wilderness and the desert. Murderous
violence profoundly changes man's environment. From being
the "garden of Eden" (Gen 2:15), a place
of plenty, of harmonious interpersonal relationships and of
friendship with God, the earth becomes "the land of Nod"
(Gen 4:16), a place of scarcity, loneliness and separation
from God. Cain will be "a fugitive and a wanderer on
the earth" (Gen 4:14): uncertainty and restlessness
will follow him forever.
And yet God, who is always merciful even when he punishes,
"put a mark on Cain, lest any who came upon him
should kill him" (Gen 4:15). He thus gave him
a distinctive sign, not to condemn him to the hatred of others,
but to protect and defend him from those wishing to kill him,
even out of a desire to avenge Abel's death. Not even a
murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges
to guarantee this. And it is pre- cisely 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 arespecifically
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 over- population
in the poorer countries, instead of forms of global intervention
at the international level - serious family and social policies,
programmes of cultural development and of fair production
and distribution of resources - anti-birth policies continue
to be enacted.
Contraception, sterilization and abortion are certainly part
of the reason why in some cases there is a sharp decline in
the birthrate. It is not difficult to be tempted to use the
same methods and attacks against life also where there is
a situation of "demographic explosion".
The Pharaoh of old, haunted by the presence and increase
of the children of Israel, submitted them to every kind of
oppression and ordered that every male child born of the Hebrew
women was to be killed (cf. Ex 1:7-22). Today not a
few of the powerful of the earth act in the same way. They
too are haunted by the current demographic growth, and fear
that the most prolific and poorest peoples represent a threat
for the well-being and peace of their own countries. Consequently,
rather than wishing to face and solve these serious problems
with respect for the dignity of individuals and families and
for every person's inviolable right to life, they prefer to
promote and impose by whatever means a massive programme of
birth control. Even the economic help which they would be
ready to give is unjustly made conditional on the acceptance
of an anti-birth policy.
17. Humanity today offers us a truly alarming spectacle,
if we consider not only how extensively attacks on life are
spreading but also their unheard-of numerical proportion,
and the fact that they receive widespread and powerful support
from a broad consensus on the part of society, from widespread
legal approval and the involvement of certain sectors of health-care
personnel.
As I emphatically stated at Denver, on the occasion of the
Eighth World Youth Day, "with time the threats against
life have not grown weaker. They are taking on vast proportions.
They are not only threats coming from the outside, from the
forces of nature or the 'Cains' who kill the 'Abels'; no,
they are scientifically and systematically programmed threats.
The twentieth century will have been an era of massive
attacks on life, an endless series of wars and a continual
taking of innocent human life. False prophets and false teachers
have had the greatest success".15
Aside from intentions, which can be varied and perhaps can
seem convincing at times, especially if presented in the name
of solidarity, we are in fact faced by an objective "conspiracy
against life", involving even international Institutions,
engaged in encouraging and carrying out actual campaigns to
make contraception, sterilization and abortion widely available.
Nor can it be denied that the mass media are often implicated
in this conspiracy, by lending credit to that culture which
presents recourse to contraception, sterilization, abortion
and even euthanasia as a mark of progress and a victory of
freedom, while depicting as enemies of freedom and progress
those positions which are unreservedly pro-life.
"Am I my brother's keeper?"
(Gen 4:9): a perverse idea of freedom
18. The panorama described needs to be understood not only
in terms of the phenomena of death which characterize it but
also in the variety of causes which determine it. The
Lord's question: "What have you done?" (Gen 4:10),
seems almost like an invitation addressed to Cain to go beyond
the material dimension of his murderous gesture, in order
to recognize in it all the gravity of the motives which
occasioned it and the consequences which result from
it.
Decisions that go against life sometimes arise from difficult
or even tragic situations of profound suffering, loneliness,
a total lack of economic pros- pects, 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 prob- lem 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 soci- ety
becomes a mass of individuals placed side by side, but without
any mutual bonds. Each one wishes to assert himself independently
of the other and in fact intends to make his own interests
prevail. Still, in the face of other people's analogous interests,
some kind of compromise must be found, if one wants a society
in which the maximum possible freedom is guaranteed to each
individual. In this way, any reference to common values and
to a truth absolutely binding on everyone is lost, and social
life ventures on to the shifting sands of complete relativism.
At that point, everything is negotiable, everything is
open to bargaining: even the first of the fundamental
rights, the right to life.
This is what is happening also at the level of politics and
government: the original and inalienable right to life is
questioned or denied on the basis of a parliamentary vote
or the will of one part of the people - even if it is the
majority. This is the sinister result of a relativism which
reigns unopposed: the "right" ceases to be such,
because it is no longer firmly founded on the inviolable dignity
of the person, but is made subject to the will of the stronger
part. In this way democracy, contradicting its own principles,
effectively moves towards a form of totalitarianism. The State
is no longer the "common home" where all can live
together on the basis of principles of fundamental equality,
but is transformed into a tyrant State, which arrogates
to itself the right to dispose of the life of the weakest
and most defenceless members, from the unborn child to the
elderly, in the name of a public interest which is really
nothing but the interest of one part. The appearance of the
strictest respect for legality is maintained, at least when
the laws permitting abortion and euthanasia are the result
of a ballot in accordance with what are generally seen as
the rules of democracy. Really, what we have here is only
the tragic caricature of legality; the democratic ideal, which
is only truly such when it acknowledges and safeguards the
dignity of every human person, is betrayed in its very
foundations: "How is it still possible to speak of
the dignity of every human person when the killing of the
weakest and most innocent is permitted? In the name of what
justice is the most unjust of discriminations practised: some
individuals are held to be deserving of defence and others
are denied that dignity?" 16
When this happens, the process leading to the breakdown of
a genuinely human co-existence and the disintegration of the
State itself has already begun.
To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia,
and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to
human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that
of an absolute power over others and against others. This
is the death of true freedom: "Truly, truly, I say to
you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin" (Jn
8:34).
"And from your face I shall
be hidden" (Gen 4:14): the eclipse of the sense of God
and of man
21. In seeking the deepest roots of the struggle between
the "culture of life" and the "culture of death",
we cannot restrict ourselves to the perverse idea of freedom
mentioned above. We have to go to the heart of the tragedy
being experienced by modern man: the eclipse of the sense
of God and of man, typical of a social and cultural climate
dominated by secularism, which, with its ubiquitous tentacles,
succeeds at times in putting Christian communities themselves
to the test. Those who allow themselves to be influenced by
this climate easily fall into a sad vicious circle: when
the sense of God is lost, there is also a tendency to lose
the sense of man, of his dignity and his life; in turn,
the systematic violation of the moral law, especially in the
serious matter of respect for human life and its dignity,
produces a kind of progressive darkening of the capacity to
discern God's living and saving presence.
Once again we can gain insight from the story of Abel's murder
by his brother. After the curse imposed on him by God, Cain
thus addresses the Lord: "My punishment is greater than
I can bear. Behold, you have driven me this day away from
the ground; and from your face I shall be hidden; and
I shall be a fugitive and wanderer on the earth, and whoever
finds me will slay me" (Gen 4:13-14). Cain is
convinced that his sin will not obtain pardon from the Lord
and that his inescapable destiny will be to have to "hide
his face" from him. If Cain is capable of confessing
that his fault is "greater than he can bear", it
is because he is conscious of being in the presence of God
and before God's just judgment. It is really only before the
Lord that man can admit his sin and recognize its full seriousness.
Such was the experience of David who, after "having committed
evil in the sight of the Lord", and being rebuked by
the Prophet Nathan, exclaimed: "My offences truly I know
them; my sin is always before me. Against you, you alone,
have I sinned; what is evil in your sight I have done"
(Ps 51:5-6).
22. Consequently, when the sense of God is lost, the sense
of man is also threatened and poisoned, as the Second Vatican
Council concisely states: "Without the Creator the creature
would disappear ... But when God is forgotten the creature
itself grows unintelligible".17
Man is no longer able to see himself as "mysteriously
different" from other earthly creatures; he regards himself
merely as one more living being, as an organism which, at
most, has reached a very high stage of perfection. Enclosed
in the narrow horizon of his physical nature, he is somehow
reduced to being "a thing", and no longer grasps
the "transcendent" character of his "existence
as man". He no longer considers life as a splendid gift
of God, something "sacred" entrusted to his responsibility
and thus also to his loving care and "veneration".
Life itself becomes a mere "thing", which man claims
as his exclusive property, completely subject to his control
and manipulation.
Thus, in relation to life at birth or at death, man is no
longer capable of posing the question of the truest meaning
of his own existence, nor can he assimilate with genuine freedom
these crucial moments of his own history. He is concerned
only with "doing", and, using all kinds of technology,
he busies himself with programming, controlling and dominating
birth and death. Birth and death, instead of being primary
experiences demanding to be "lived", become things
to be merely "possessed" or "rejected".
Moreover, once all reference to God has been removed, it
is not surprising that the meaning of everything else becomes
profoundly distorted. Nature itself, from being "mater"
(mother), is now reduced to being "matter", and
is subjected to every kind of manipulation. This is the direction
in which a certain technical and scientific way of thinking,
prevalent in present-day culture, appears to be leading when
it rejects the very idea that there is a truth of creation
which must be ac- knowledged, or a plan of God for life which
must be respected. Something similar happens when concern
about the consequences of such a "freedom without law"
leads some people to the opposite position of a "law
without freedom", as for example in ideologies which
consider it unlawful to interfere in any way with nature,
practically "divinizing" it. Again, this is a misunderstanding
of nature's dependence on the plan of the Creator. Thus it
is clear that the loss of contact with God's wise design is
the deepest root of modern man's confusion, both when this
loss leads to a freedom without rules and when it leaves man
in "fear" of his freedom.
By living "as if God did not exist", man not only
loses sight of the mystery of God, but also of the mystery
of the world and the mystery of his own being.
23. The eclipse of the sense of God and of man inevitably
leads to a practical materialism, which breeds individualism,
utilitarianism and hedonism. Here too we see the permanent
validity of the words of the Apostle: "And since they
did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a
base mind and to improper conduct" (Rom 1:28).
The values of being are replaced by those of having.
The only goal which counts is the pursuit of one's own
material well-being. The so-called "quality of life"
is interpreted primarily or exclusively as economic efficiency,
inordinate consumerism, physical beauty and pleasure, to the
neglect of the more profound dimensions - interpersonal, spiritual
and religious - of existence.
In such a context suffering, an inescapable burden
of human existence but also a factor of possible personal
growth, is "censored", rejected as useless, indeed
opposed as an evil, always and in every way to be avoided.
When it cannot be avoided and the prospect of even some future
well-being vanishes, then life appears to have lost all meaning
and the temptation grows in man to claim the right to suppress
it.
Within this same cultural climate, the body is no
longer perceived as a properly personal reality, a sign and
place of relations with others, with God and with the world.
It is reduced to pure materiality: it is simply a complex
of organs, functions and energies to be used according to
the sole criteria of pleasure and efficiency. Consequently,
sexuality too is depersonalized and exploited: from
being the sign, place and language of love, that is, of the
gift of self and acceptance of another, in all the other's
richness as a person, it increasingly becomes the occasion
and instrument for self-assertion and the selfish satisfaction
of personal desires and instincts. Thus the original import
of human sexuality is distorted and falsified, and the two
meanings, unitive and procreative, inherent in the very nature
of the conjugal act, are artificially separated: in this way
the marriage union is betrayed and its fruitfulness is subjected
to the caprice of the couple. Procreation then becomes
the "enemy" to be avoided in sexual activity: if
it is welcomed, this is only because it expresses a desire,
or indeed the intention, to have a child "at all costs",
and not because it signifies the complete acceptance of the
other and therefore an openness to the richness of life which
the child represents.
In the materialistic perspective described so far, interpersonal
relations are seriously impoverished. The first to be
harmed are women, children, the sick or suffering, and the
elderly. The criterion of personal dignity - which demands
respect, generosity and service - is replaced by the criterion
of efficiency, functionality and usefulness: others are considered
not for what they "are", but for what they "have,
do and produce". This is the supremacy of the strong
over the weak.
24. It is at the heart of the moral conscience that
the eclipse of the sense of God and of man, with all its various
and deadly consequences for life, is taking place. It is a
question, above all, of the individual conscience,
as it stands before God in its singleness and uniqueness.18
But it is also a question, in a certain sense, of the "moral
conscience" of society: in a way it too is responsible,
not only because it tolerates or fosters behaviour contrary
to life, but also because it encourages the "culture
of death", creating and consolidating actual "structures
of sin" which go against life. The moral conscience,
both individual and social, is today subjected, also as a
result of the penetrating influence of the media, to an
extremely serious and mortal danger: that of confusion
between good and evil, precisely in relation to the fundamental
right to life. A large part of contemporary society looks
sadly like that humanity which Paul describes in his Letter
to the Romans. It is composed "of men who by their wickedness
suppress the truth" (1:18): having denied God and believing
that they can build the earthly city without him, "they
became futile in their thinking" so that "their
senseless minds were darkened" (1:21); "claiming
to be wise, they became fools" (1:22), carrying out works
deserving of death, and "they not only do them but approve
those who practise them" (1:32). When conscience, this
bright lamp of the soul (cf. Mt 6:22-23), calls "evil
good and good evil" (Is 5:20), it is already on
the path to the most alarming corruption and the darkest moral
blindness.
And yet all the conditioning and efforts to enforce silence
fail to stifle the voice of the Lord echoing in the conscience
of every individual: it is always from this intimate sanctuary
of the conscience that a new journey of love, openness and
service to human life can begin.
"You have come to the sprinkled
blood" (cf. Heb 12: 22, 24): signs of hope and invitation
to commitment
25. "The voice of your brother's blood is crying to
me from the ground" (Gen 4:10). It is not only
the voice of the blood of Abel, the first innocent man to
be murdered, which cries to God, the source and defender of
life. The blood of every other human being who has been killed
since Abel is also a voice raised to the Lord. In an absolutely
singular way, as the author of the Letter to the Hebrews reminds
us, the voice of the blood of Christ, of whom Abel
in his innocence is a prophetic figure, cries out to God:
"You have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living
God ... to the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled
blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel"
(12:22, 24).
It is the sprinkled blood. A symbol and prophetic
sign of it had been the blood of the sacrifices of the Old
Covenant, whereby God expressed his will to communicate his
own life to men, purifying and consecrating them (cf. Ex
24:8; Lev 17:11). Now all of this is fulfilled
and comes true in Christ: his is the sprinkled blood which
redeems, purifies and saves; it is the blood of the Mediator
of the New Covenant "poured out for many for the forgiveness
of sins" (Mt 26:28). This blood, which flows from
the pierced side of Christ on the Cross (cf. Jn 19:34),
"speaks more graciously" than the blood of Abel;
indeed, it expresses and requires a more radical "justice",
and above all it implores mercy,19
it makes intercession for the brethren before the Father (cf.
Heb 7:25), and it is the source of perfect redemption
and the gift of new life.
The blood of Christ, while it reveals the grandeur of the
Father's love, shows how precious man is in God's eyes
and how priceless the value of his life. The Apostle Peter
reminds us of this: "You know that you were ransomed
from the futile ways inherited from your fathers, not with
perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious
blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot"
(1 Pt 1:18-19). Precisely by contemplating the precious
blood of Christ, the sign of his self-giving love (cf. Jn
13:1), the believer learns to recognize and appreciate
the almost divine dignity of every human being and can exclaim
with ever renewed and grateful wonder: "How precious
must man be in the eyes of the Creator, if he 'gained so great
a Redeemer' (Exsultet of the Easter Vigil), and if
God 'gave his only Son' in order that man 'should not perish
but have eternal life' (cf. Jn 3:16)!".20
Furthermore, Christ's blood reveals to man that his greatness,
and therefore his vocation, consists in the sincere gift
of self. Precisely because it is poured out as the gift
of life, the blood of Christ is no longer a sign of death,
of definitive separation from the brethren, but the instrument
of a communion which is richness of life for all. Whoever
in the Sacrament of the Eucharist drinks this blood and abides
in Jesus (cf. Jn 6:56) is drawn into the dynamism of
his love and gift of life, in order to bring to its fullness
the original vocation to love which belongs to everyone (cf.
Gen 1:27; 2:18-24).
It is from the blood of Christ that all draw the strength
to commit themselves to promoting life. It is precisely
this blood that is the most powerful source of hope, indeed
it is the foundation of the absolute certitude that in God's
plan life will be victorious. "And death shall be
no more", exclaims the powerful voice which comes from
the throne of God in the Heavenly Jerusalem (Rev 21:4).
And Saint Paul assures us that the present victory over sin
is a sign and anticipation of the definitive victory over
death, when there "shall come to pass the saying that
is written: 'Death is swallowed up in victory'. 'O death,
where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?' "
(1 Cor 15:54-55).
26. In effect, signs which point to this victory are not
lacking in our societies and cultures, strongly marked though
they are by the "culture of death". It would therefore
be to give a one-sided picture, which could lead to sterile
discouragement, if the condemnation of the threats to life
were not accompanied by the presentation of the positive
signs at work in humanity's present situation.
Unfortunately it is often hard to see and recognize these
positive signs, perhaps also because they do not receive sufficient
attention in the communications media. Yet, how many initiatives
of help and support for people who are weak and defenceless
have sprung up and continue to spring up in the Christian
community and in civil society, at the local, national and
international level, through the efforts of individuals, groups,
movements and organizations of various kinds!
There are still many married couples who, with a generous
sense of responsibility, are ready to accept children as "the
supreme gift of marriage".21
Nor is there a lack of families which, over and above
their everyday service to life, are willing to accept abandoned
children, boys and girls and teenagers in difficulty, handicapped
persons, elderly men and women who have been left alone. Many
centres in support of life, or similar institutions,
are sponsored by individuals and groups which, with admirable
dedication and sacrifice, offer moral and material support
to mothers who are in difficulty and are tempted to have recourse
to abortion. Increasingly, there are appearing in many places
groups of volunteers prepared to offer hospitality to
persons without a family, who find themselves in conditions
of particular distress or who need a supportive environment
to help them to overcome destructive habits and discover anew
the meaning of life.
Medical science, thanks to the committed efforts
of researchers and practitioners, continues in its efforts
to discover ever more effective remedies: treatments which
were once inconceivable but which now offer much promise for
the future are today being developed for the unborn, the suffering
and those in an acute or terminal stage of sickness. Various
agencies and organizations are mobilizing their efforts to
bring the benefits of the most advanced medicine to countries
most afflicted by poverty and endemic diseases. In a similar
way national and international associations of physicians
are being organized to bring quick relief to peoples affected
by natural disasters, epidemics or wars. Even if a just international
distribution of medical resources is still far from being
a reality, how can we not recognize in the steps taken so
far the sign of a growing solidarity among peoples, a praiseworthy
human and moral sensitivity and a greater respect for life?
27. In view of laws which permit abortion and in view of
efforts, which here and there have been successful, to legalize
euthanasia, movements and initiatives to raise social awareness
in defence of life have sprung up in many parts of the
world. When, in accordance with their principles, such movements
act resolutely, but without resorting to violence, they promote
a wider and more profound consciousness of the value of life,
and evoke and bring about a more determined commitment to
its defence.
Furthermore, how can we fail to mention all those daily
gestures of openness, sacrifice and unselfish care which
countless people lovingly make in families, hospitals, orphanages,
homes for the elderly and other centres or communities which
defend life? Allowing herself to be guided by the example
of Jesus the "Good Samaritan" (cf. Lk 10:29-37)
and upheld by his strength, the Church has always been in
the front line in providing charitable help: so many of her
sons and daughters, especially men and women Religious, in
traditional and ever new forms, have consecrated and continue
to consecrate their lives to God, freely giving of themselves
out of love for their neighbour, especially for the weak and
needy. These deeds strengthen the bases of the "civilization
of love and life", without which the life of individuals
and of society itself loses its most genuinely human quality.
Even if they go unnoticed and remain hidden to most people,
faith assures us that the Father "who sees in secret"
(Mt 6:6) not only will reward these actions but already
here and now makes them produce lasting fruit for the good
of all.
Among the signs of hope we should also count the spread,
at many levels of public opinion, of a new sensitivity
ever more opposed to war as an instrument for the resolution
of conflicts between peoples, and increasingly oriented to
finding effective but "non-violent" means to counter
the armed aggressor. In the same perspective there is evidence
of a growing public opposition to the death penalty, even
when such a penalty is seen as a kind of "legitimate
defence" on the part of society. Modern society in fact
has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering
criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance
to reform.
Another welcome sign is the growing attention being paid
to the quality of life and to ecology, especially
in more developed societies, where people's expectations are
no longer concentrated so much on problems of survival as
on the search for an overall improvement of living conditions.
Especially significant is the reawakening of an ethical reflection
on issues affecting life. The emergence and ever more widespread
development of bioethics is promoting more reflection
and dialogue - between believers and non-believers, as well
as between followers of different religions - on ethical problems,
including fundamental issues pertaining to human life.
28. This situation, with its lights and shadows, ought to
make us all fully aware that we are facing an enormous and
dramatic clash between good and evil, death and life, the
"culture of death" and the "culture of life".
We find ourselves not only "faced with" but necessarily
"in the midst of" this conflict: we are all involved
and we all share in it, with the inescapable responsibility
of choosing to be unconditionally pro-life.
For us too Moses' invitation rings out loud and clear: "See,
I have set before you this day life and good, death and evil.
... I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse;
therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live"
(Dt 30:15, 19). This invitation is very appropriate
for us who are called day by day to the duty of choosing between
the "culture of life" and the "culture of death".
But the call of Deuteronomy goes even deeper, for it urges
us to make a choice which is properly religious and moral.
It is a question of giving our own existence a basic orientation
and living the law of the Lord faithfully and consistently:
"If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God which
I command you this day, by loving the Lord your God, by
walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments
and his statutes and his ordinances, then you shall live
... therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may
live, loving the Lord your God, obeying his voice, and cleaving
to him; for that means life to you and length of days"
(30:16,19-20).
The unconditional choice for life reaches its full religious
and moral meaning when it flows from, is formed by and nourished
by faith in Christ. Nothing helps us so much to face
positively the conflict between death and life in which we
are engaged as faith in the Son of God who became man and
dwelt among men so "that they may have life, and have
it abundantly" (Jn 10:10). It is a matter of faith
in the Risen Lord, who has conquered death; faith in the
blood of Christ "that speaks more graciously than the
blood of Abel" (Heb 12:24).
With the light and strength of this faith, therefore, in
facing the challenges of the present situation, the Church
is becoming more aware of the grace and responsibility which
come to her from her Lord of proclaiming, celebrating and
serving the Gospel of life.
Chapter 2 >> |
