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