THE CONFERENCE:
Candidate Survey (11/2006)
making (1/06)
Statement (2/05)
-Capitol
Correspondent:
*********
Life Insight:
Columns-2008
*********
Throughout this website, the NCC provides links to other websites solely for the user's convenience. By providing these links, the NCC assumes no responsibility for, nor does it necessarily endorse the websites or organizations linked.
Church Documents on the Sanctity of Human Life & Sexuality
Vatican Documents (some links to USCCB Pro Life Teaching Documents site)
 | |
| |
|
Donum Vitae - (Infertility, Reproductive Technologies, Biomedical Research-1987) |
|
Statement on Euthanasia (1991) |
|
Evangelium Vitae (On the Value and Inviolability of Human Life-1995) |
|
Humanae Vitae or Summary below. (Human Sexuality, Contraception-1968) |
|
Casti connubii (1930) |
|
Guadium et spes (1965) |
|
Familiaris consortio (1980) |
US Bishops' Documents
| |
|
Light and Shadows - Our Nation 25 Years After Roe v. Wade (1998) |
| |
|
Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities: A Campaign in Support for Life (Nov. 2001) |
|
Resolution on Abortion (1989) |
Nebraska & Other Bishops' Documents
|
25 Years of Roe v. Wade (1/22/98) |
|
Pastoral Letter to the Catholics of Nebraska Regarding Project Rachel (1/01) |
|
Of Human Life (pastoral letter by Denver Archbishop Chaput) |
Declaration on Abortion
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, November 18, 1974
I. Introduction
1 The problem of procured abortion and of its possible legal liberalization has become almost everywhere the subject of impassioned discussions. These debates would be less grave were it not a question of human life, a primordial value, which must be protected and promoted. Everyone understands this, although many look for reasons, even against all evidence, to promote the use of abortion. One cannot but be astonished to see on the one hand an increase of unqualified protests against the death penalty and every form of war and on the other hand the vindication of the liberalization of abortion, either in its entirety or in ever broader indications. The Church is too conscious of the fact that it belongs to her vocation to defend man against everything that could disintegrate or lessen his dignity to remain silent on such a topic. Because the Son of God became man, there is no man who is not his brother in humanity and who is not called to become a Christian in order to receive salvation from him.
2 In many countries the public authorities which resist the liberalization of abortion laws are the object of powerful pressures aimed at leading them to this goal. This, it is said, would violate no one’s conscience, for each individual would be left free to follow his own opinion, while being prevented from imposing it on others. Ethical pluralism is claimed to be a normal consequence of ideological pluralism. There is, however, a great difference between the one and the other, for action affects the interests of others more quickly than does mere opinion. Moreover, one can never claim freedom of opinion as a pretext for attacking the rights of others, most especially the right to life.
3 Numerous Christian lay people, especially doctors, but also parents’ associations, statesmen, or leading figures in posts of responsibility have vigorously reacted against this propaganda campaign. Above all, many episcopal conferences and many bishops acting in their own name have judged it opportune to recall very strongly the traditional doctrine of the Church.1 With a striking convergence these documents admirably emphasize an attitude of respect for life which is at the same time human and Christian. Nevertheless it has happened that several of these documents here or there have encountered reservation or even opposition.
4 Charged with the promotion and the defense of faith and morals in the universal church,2 the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith proposes to recall this teaching in its essential aspects to all the faithful. Thus, in showing the unity of the Church, it will confirm by the authority proper to the Holy See what the bishops have opportunely undertaken. It hopes that all the faithful, including those who might have been unsettled by the controversies and new opinions, will understand that it is not a question of opposing one opinion to another, but of transmitting to the faithful a constant teaching of the supreme Magisterium, which teaches moral norms in the light of faith.3 It is therefore clear that this Declaration necessarily entails a grave obligation for Christian consciences.4 May God deign to enlighten also all men who strive with their whole heart to "act in truth" (Jn 3:21).
II. In the light of faith
5 "Death was not God’s doing, he takes no pleasure in the extinction of the living" (Wis 1:13). Certainly God has created beings who have only one lifetime and physical death cannot be absent from the world of those with a bodily existence. But what is immediately willed is life, and in the visible universe everything has been made for man, who is the image of God and the world’s crowning glory (cf. Gen 1:26-28). On the human level, "it was the devils’ envy that brought death into the world" (Wis 2:24). Introduced by sin, death remains bound up with it: death is the sign and fruit of sin. But there is no final triumph for death. Confirming faith in the Resurrection, the Lord proclaims in the Gospel: "God is God, not of the dead, but of the living" (Mt 22:32). And death like sin will be definitively defeated by resurrection in Christ (cf. 1 Cor 15:20-27). Thus we understand that human life, even on this earth, is precious. Infused by the Creator,5 life is again taken back by him (cf. Gen 2:7, Wis 15:11). It remains under his protection: man’s blood cries out to him (cf. Gen 4:10) and he will demand an account for it, "for in the image of God man was made" (Gen 9:5-6). The commandment of God is formal: "You shall not kill" (Ex 20:13). Life is at the same time a gift and a responsibility. It is received as a "talent" (cf. Mt 25:14-30); it must be put to proper use. In order that life may bring forth fruit, many tasks are offered to man in this world and he must not shirk them. More important still, the Christina knows that eternal life depends on what, with the grace of God, he does with his life on earth.
6 The tradition of the Church has always held that human life must be protected and favored from the beginning, just as at the various stages of its development. Opposing the morals of the Greco-Roman world, the Church of the first centuries insisted on the difference that exists on this point between those morals and Christian morals. In the Didaché it is clearly said: "You shall not kill the fetus by abortion and you shall not murder the infant already born."6 Athenagoras emphasizes that Christians consider as murderers those women who take medicines to procure an abortion; he condemns the killers of children, including those still living in their mother’s womb, "where they are already the object of the care of divine Providence."7 Tertullian did not always perhaps use the same language; he nevertheless clearly affirms the essential principle: "To prevent birth is anticipated murder; it makes little difference whether one destroys a life already born or does away with it in its nascent stage. The one who will be a man is already one."8
7 In the course of history, the Fathers of the Church, her Pastors and her Doctors have taught the same doctrine¾ the various opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul did not introduce any doubt about the illicitness of abortion. It is true that in the Middle Ages, when the opinion was generally held that the spiritual soul was not present until after the first few weeks, a distinction was made in the evaluation of the sin and the gravity of penal sanctions. Excellent authors allowed for the first period more lenient case solutions which they rejected for following periods. But is was never denied at that time that procured abortion, even during the first days, was objectively a grave fault. This condemnation was in fact unanimous. Among the many documents it is sufficient to recall certain ones. The first Council of Mainz in 847 reconsiders the penalties against abortion which had been established by preceding Councils. It decided that the most rigorous penance would be imposed " on women who procure the elimination of the fruit conceived in their womb."9 The Decree of Gratian reports the following words of Pope Stephen V: "That person is a murderer who causes to perish by abortion what has been conceived."10 Saint Thomas, the Common Doctor of the Church, teaches that abortion is a grave sin against the natural law.11 At the time of the Renaissance Pope Sixtus V condemned abortion with the greatest severity.12 A century later, Innocent XI rejected the propositions of certain lax canonists who sought to excuse an abortion procured before the moment accepted by some as the moment of the spiritual animation of the new being.13 In our days the recent Roman Pontiffs have proclaimed the same doctrine with the greatest clarity. Pius XI explicitly answered the most serious objections.14 Pius XII clearly excluded all direct abortion, that is, abortion which is either an end or a means.15 John XXIII recalled the teaching of the Fathers on the sacred character of life "which from its beginning demands the action of God the Creator."16 Most recently, the Second Vatican Council, presided over by Paul VI, has most severely condemned abortion: "Life must be safeguarded with extreme care form conception; abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes."17 The same Paul VI, speaking on this subject on many occasions, has not been afraid to declare that this teaching of the Church "has not changed and is unchangeable."18
III. In the additional light of reason
8 Respect for human life is not just a Christian obligation. Human reason is sufficient to impose it on the basis of the analysis of what a human person is and should be. Constituted by a rational nature, man is a personal subject, capable of reflecting on himself and of determining his acts and hence his own destiny: he is free. He is consequently master of himself, or rather, because this takes place in the course of time, he has the means of becoming so: this is his task. Created immediately by God, man’s soul is spiritual and therefore immortal. Hence man is open to God; he finds his fulfillment only in him. But man lives in the community of his equals; he is nourished by interpersonal communication with men in the indispensable social setting. In the fact of society and other men, each human person possesses himself, he possesses life and different goods; he has these as a right. It is this that strict justice demands from all in this regard.
9 Nevertheless, temporal life lived in this world is not identified with the person. The person possesses as his own a level of life that is more profound and that cannot end. Bodily life is a fundamental good; here below it is the condition for all other goods. But there are higher values for which it could be legitimate or even necessary to be willing to expose oneself to the risk of losing bodily life. In a society of persons the common good is for each individual an end which he must serve and to which he must subordinate his particular interest. But it is not his last end and, from this point of view, it is society which is at the service of the person, because the person will not fulfill his destiny except in God. The person can be definitively subordinated only to God. Man can never be treated simply as a means to be disposed of in order to obtain a higher end.
10 In regard to the mutual rights and duties of the person and of society, it belongs to moral teaching to enlighten consciences, it belongs to the law to specify and organize external behavior. In fact, there are a certain number of rights which society is not in a position to grant since these rights precede society; but society has the function to preserve and to enforce them. These are the greater part of those which are today called "human rights" and which our age boasts of having formulated.
11 The first right of the human person is the right to life. He has other goods of which some are more precious, but this one is fundamental--the condition of all the others. Hence it must be protected above all others. It does not belong to society, nor does it belong to public authority in any form to recognize this right for some and not for others: all discrimination is evil, whether it be founded on race, sex, color or religion. It is not recognition by another that constitutes this right. This right is antecedent to its recognition; it demands recognition and it is strictly unjust to refuse it.
12 Any discrimination based on the various stages of life is no more justified than any other discrimination. The right to life remains complete in an old person, even one greatly weakened, it is not lost by one who is incurably sick. The right to life is no less to be respected in the small infant just born than in the mature person. In reality, respect for human life is called for from the time that the process of generation begins. From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his or her own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already.
13 To this perpetual evidence--perfectly independent of the discussions on the moment of animation19--modern genetic science brings valuable confirmation. It has demonstrated that , from the first instant there is established the programme of what this living being will be: a man, this individual man with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization is begun the adventure of a human life, and each of its capacities requires time--a rather lengthy time--to find its place and to be in a position to act. The least that can be said is that present science, in its most evolved state, does not give any substantial support to those who defend abortion. Moreover, it is not up to biological sciences to make a definitive judgment on questions which are properly philosophical and moral, such as the moment when a human person is constituted or the legitimacy of abortion. Form a moral point of view this is certain: even if a doubt existed concerning whether the fruit of conception is already a human person, it is objectively a grave sin to dare to risk murder. "The one who will be a man is already one."20
IV. Reply to some objections
14 Divine law and natural reason, therefore, exclude all right to the direct killing of an innocent man. However, if the reasons given to justify an abortion were always manifestly evil and valueless the problem would not be so dramatic. The gravity of the problem comes from the fact that in certain cases, perhaps in quite a considerable number of cases by denying abortion one endangers important values to which it is normal to attach great value, and which may sometimes even seem to have priority. We do not deny these very great difficulties. It may be a serious question of health, sometimes of life or death, for the mother; it may be that burden represented by an additional child, especially if there are good reasons to fear that the child will be abnormal or retarded; it may be the importance attributed in different classes of society to considerations of honor or dishonor, of loss of social standing, and so forth. We proclaim only that none of these reasons can ever objectively confer the right to dispose of another’s life, even when that life is only beginning. With regard to the future unhappiness of the child, no one, not even the father or mother, can act as its substitute, even if it is still in the embryonic stage, to choose in the child’s name, life or death. The child itself, when grown up, will never have that right to choose suicide; no more may his parents choose death for the child while it is not of an age to decide for itself. Life is too fundamental a value to be weighed against even very serious disadvantages.21
15 The movement for the emancipation of women, in so far as it seeks essentially to free them form all unjust discrimination, is on perfectly sound ground.22 In the different forms of cultural background there is a great deal to be done in this regard. But one cannot change nature. Nor can one exempt women, any more than men, form what nature demands of them. Furthermore, all publicly recognized freedom is always limited by the certain rights of others.
16 The same must be said of the claim to sexual freedom. If by this expression one is to understand the mastery progressively acquired by reason and by authentic love over instinctive impulse, without diminishing pleasure but keeping it in its proper place--and in this sphere this is the only authentic freedom--then there is nothing to object to. But this kind of freedom will always be careful not to violate justice. If, on the contrary, one is to understand that men and women are "free" to seek sexual pleasures to the point of satiety, without taking into account any law or the essential orientation of sexual life to its fruits of fertility23, then this idea has nothing Christian in it. It is even unworthy of man. In any case it does not confer any right to dispose of human life--even if embryonic--or to suppress it on the pretext that it is burdensome.
17 Scientific progress is opening to technology--and will open still more--the possibility of delicate interventions, the consequences of which can be very serious, for good as well as for evil. These are achievements of the human spirit which in themselves are admirable. But technology can never be independent of the criterion of morality, since technology exists for man and must respect his finality. Just as there is no right to use nuclear energy for every possible purpose, so there is no right to manipulate human life in every possible direction. Technology must be at the service of man, so as better to ensure the functioning of his normal abilities, to prevent or to cure his illnesses, to contribute to his better human development. It is true that the evolution of technology makes early abortion more and more easy, but the moral evaluation is in no way modified because of this.
18 We know what seriousness the problem of birth control can assume for some families and for some countries. That is why the last Council and subsequently the Encyclical Humanae Vitae of July 25, 1968, spoke of "responsible parenthood."24 What we wish to say again with emphasis, as was pointed out in the conciliar Constitution Guadium et Spes, in the Encyclical Populorum Progressio and in other papal documents, is that never, under any pretext, may abortion be resorted to, either by a family or by the political authority, as a legitimate means of regulating births.25 The damage to moral values is always a greater evil for the common good than any disadvantage in the economic or demographic order.
V. Morality and Law
19 The moral discussion is being accompanied more or less everywhere by serious juridical debates. There is no country where legislation does not forbid and punish homicide. Further more, any countries had specifically applied this condemnation and these penalties to the particular case of procured abortion. In these days a vast body of opinion petitions the liberalization of this latter prohibition. There already exists a fairly general tendency which seeks to limit as far as possible all restrictive legislation, especially when it seems to touch upon private life. The argument of pluralism is also used. Although many citizens, in particular the Catholic faithful, condemn abortion, many others hold that it is licit, at least as a lesser evil. Why force them to follow an opinion which is not theirs, especially in a country where they are in the majority? In addition it is apparent that, where they still exist, the laws condemning abortion appear difficult to apply. The crime has become too common for it to be punished every time, and the public authorities often find that it is wiser to close their eyes to it. But the preservation of a law which is not applied is always to the detriment of authority and of all other laws. It must be added that clandestine abortion puts women who resign themselves to it and have recourse to it in the most serious dangers for future pregnancies and also in many cases for their lives. Even if the legislator continues to regard abortion as an evil, may he not propose to restrict its damage?
20 These arguments and others in addition that are heard from varying quarters are not conclusive. It is true that civil law cannot expect to cover the whole field of morality or to punish all faults. No one expects it to do so. I must often tolerate what is in fact a lesser evil, in order to avoid a greater one. One must, however, be attentive to what a change in legislation can represent. Many will take as authorization what is perhaps only the abstention from punishment. Even more, in the present case, this very renunciation seems at the very least to admit that the legislator no longer considers abortion a crime against human life, since murder is still always severely punished. It is true that it is not the task of the law to choose between points of view or to impose one rather than another. But the life of the child takes precedence over all opinions. One cannot invoke freedom of thought to destroy this life.
21 The role of law is not to record what is done, but to help in promoting improvement. It is at all times the task of the State to preserve each person’s rights and to protect the weakest. In order to do so the State will have to right many wrongs. The law is not obliged to sanction everything, but it cannot act contrary to a law which is deeper and more majestic than any human law: the natural law engraved in men’s hearts by the Creator as a norm which reason clarifies and strives to formulate properly, and which one must always struggle to understand better, but which it is always wrong to contradict. Human law can abstain from punishment, but it cannot declare to be right what would be opposed to the natural law, for this opposition suffices to give the assurance that a law is not a law at all.
22 It must in any case be clearly understood that whatever may be laid down by civil law in this matter, man can never obey a law which is in itself immoral, and such is the case of a law which would admit in principle the liceity of abortion. Nor can he take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such law, or vote for it. Moreover, he may not collaborate in its application. It is, for instance, inadmissible that doctors or nurses should find themselves obliged to cooperate closely in abortions and have to choose between the law of God and their professional situation.
23 On the contrary it is the task of law to pursue a reform of society and of conditions of life in all milieux, starting with the most deprived, so that always and everywhere it may be possible to give every child coming into this world a welcome worthy of a person. Help for families and for unmarried mothers, assured grants for children, a statute for illegitimate children and reasonable arrangements for adoption--a whole positive policy must be put into force so that there will always be a concrete, honorable and possible alternative to abortion.
24 Following one’s conscience in obedience to the law of God is not always the easy way. One must not fail to recognize the weight of the sacrifices and the burdens which it can impose. Heroism is sometimes called for in order to remain faithful to the requirements of the divine law. Therefore we must emphasize that the path of true progress of the human person passes through this constant fidelity to a conscience maintained in uprightness and truth; and we must exhort all those who are able to do so to lighten the burdens still crushing so many men and women, families and children, who are placed in situations to which in human terms there is no solution.
25 A Christians outlook cannot be limited to the horizon of life in this world. He knows that during the present life another one is being prepared, one of such importance that it is in its light that judgments must be made.26 From this viewpoint there is no absolute misfortune here below, not even the terrible sorrow of bringing up a handicapped child. This is the contradiction proclaimed by the Lord: "Happy those who mourn: they shall be comforted" (Mt 5:5). To measure happiness by the absence of sorrow and misery in this world is to turn one’s back on the Gospel.
26 But this does not mean that one can remain indifferent to these sorrows and miseries. Every man and woman with feeling, and certainly every Christian, must be ready to do what he can to remedy them. This is the law of charity, of which the first preoccupation must always be the establishment of justice. One can never approve of abortion; but it is above all necessary to combat its causes. This includes political action, which will be in particular the task of the law. But it is necessary at the same time to influence morality and to do everything possible to help families, mothers and children. Considerable progress in service of the life has been accomplished by medicine. One can hope that such progress will continue, in accordance with the vocation of doctors, which is not to suppress life but to care for it and favor it as much as possible. It is equally desirable that, in suitable institutions, or, in their absence, in the outpouring of Christian generosity and charity every form of assistance should be developed.
27 There will be no effective action on the level of morality unless at the same time an effort is made on the level of ideas. A point of view--or even more perhaps a way of thinking--which considers fertility as an evil cannot be allowed to spread without contradiction. It is true that not all forms of culture are equally in favor of large families. Such families come up against much greater difficulties in an industrial and urban civilization. Thus the Church has in recent times insisted on the idea of responsible parenthood, the exercise of true human and Christian prudence. Such prudence would not be authentic if it did not include generosity. It must preserve awareness of the grandeur of the task of cooperating with the Creator in the transmission of life, which gives new members to society and new children to the Church. Christ’s Church has the fundamental solicitude of protecting and favoring life. She certainly thinks before all else of the life which Christ came to bring: "I have come so that they may have life and have it to the full" (Jn 10:10). But life at all its levels comes from God, and bodily life is for man the indispensable beginning. In this life on earth sin has introduced, multiplied and made harder to bear suffering and death. But in taking their burden upon himself Jesus Christ has transformed them: for whoever believes in him, suffering and death itself become instruments of resurrection. Hence Saint Paul can say: "I think that what we suffer in this life can never be compared to the glory, as yet unrevealed, which is waiting for us" (Rom 8:18). And, if we make this comparison we shall add with him: "Yes, the troubles which are soon over, though they weigh little, train us for the carrying of a weight of eternal glory which is out of all proportion to them" (2 Cor 4:17).
The Supreme Pontiff Pope Paul VI, in an audience granted to the undersigned Secretary of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on June 28, 1974 has ratified this Declaration on Procured Abortion and has confirmed it and ordered it to be promulgated.
Given in Rome, at the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on November 18, the Commemoration of the Dedication of the Basilicas of Saints Peter and Paul, in the year 1974.
Franciscus. Card. Seper -- Prefect --
Hieronymus Hamer, Titular Archbishop of Lorium -- Secretary
Pope John Paul II on the Death Penalty…
"The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for the consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary." --Homily at the January 27, 1999 Papal Mass in the Trans World Dome, St. Louis, Missouri.
"Nowadays, in America as elsewhere in the world, a model of society appears to be emerging in which the powerful predominate, setting aside and even eliminating the powerless: I am thinking here of unborn children, helpless victims of abortion; the elderly and incurably ill, subjected at times to euthanasia; and many other people relegated to the margins of society by consumerism and materialism. Nor can I fail to mention the unnecessary recourse to the death penalty when other bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons. Today, given the means at the State's disposal to deal with crime and control those who commit it, without abandoning all hope of their redemption, the cases where it is absolutely necessary to do away with an offender are now very rare, even non-existent practically. This model of society bears the stamp of the culture of death, and is therefore in opposition to the Gospel message." --Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Ecclesia in America, issued in Mexico City, January 25, 1999.
"Dear brothers and sisters, the time has come to banish once and for all from the continent every attack against life. No more violence, terrorism and drug-trafficking! No more torture or other forms of abuse! There must be an end to the unnecessary recourse to the death penalty!" --Homily at the January 23, 1999 Papal Mass in the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Mexico City.
"May Christmas help to strengthen and renew, throughout the world, the consensus concerning the need for urgent and adequate measures to halt the production and sale of arms, to defend human life, to end the death penalty, to free children and adolescents form all forms of exploitation, to restrain the bloodied hand of those responsible for genocide and crimes of war, to give environmental issues, especially after the recent natural catastrophes, the indispensable attention which they deserve for the protection of creation and of human dignity!" --"Urbi et Orbi" ("To the City and to the World") Annual Christmas Message, issued December 25, 1998, in St. Peter's Square, Rome.
"I greet again all those who have come with petitions to defend human life and to abolish the death penalty." --Impromptu remarks made on December 25, 1998 in St. Peter's Square in Rome to 5,000 death penalty opponents asking for global moratorium on executions.
"I am delighted that the proposal for a reduction in foreign debt of the poorest countries, and a moratorium on executions, at least in the Jubilee year, is backed by people who have influential positions in institutions and who therefore can efficiently contribute to its acceptance." --Remarks made at a November 5, 1998 concert given by members of the Italian Parliament to mark the 20th anniversary of his election to the papacy.
"The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender and adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his of her freedom. In this way authority also fulfills the purpose of defending public order and insuring people's safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behavior and be rehabilitated.
"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 nonexistent." --Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), issued March 30, 1995.
Vatican Declaration on Euthanasia
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, May 5, 1980
Although the church’s teaching on euthanasia has been set forth by recent popes, a June 26 declaration by the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith notes, new questions about suffering and death resulting from recent medical advances and cultural changes require further explanation. "It is necessary to state firmly once more that 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," it says. "No one is permitted to ask for this act of killing...nor can he or she consent to it...nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action," it continues. The document discusses the use of painkillers, noting that while suffering has a special place in God’s saving plan, "it would be imprudent to impose a heroic way of acting as a general rule" and that "human and Christian prudence suggest for the majority of sick people the use of medicines capable of alleviating or suppressing pain." It stresses the importance of protecting "the dignity of the human person and the Christian concept of life against a technological attitude that threatens to become an abuse." It also discusses the use of advanced medical techniques and when their use may be interrupted or refused. The text follows.
The rights and values pertaining to the human person occupy an important place among the questions discussed today. In this regard, the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council solemnly reaffirmed the lofty dignity of the human person, and in a special way his or her right to life. The council therefore condemned crimes against life "such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or willful suicide" (Gaudium et Spes, n. 27).
More recently, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has reminded all the faithful of Catholic teaching on procured abortion.1 The congregation now considers it opportune to set forth the church’s teaching on euthanasia.
It is indeed true that in this sphere of teaching the recent popes have explained the principles and these retain their full force;2 but the progress of medical science in recent years has brought to the fore new aspects of the question of euthanasia, and these aspects call for further elucidation on the ethical level.
In modern society, in which even the fundamental values of human life are often called into question, cultural change exercises an influence upon the way of looking at suffering and death; moreover, medicine has increased its capacity to cure and to prolong life in particular circumstances, which sometimes give rise to moral problems.
Thus people living in this situation experience no little anxiety about the meaning of advanced old age and death. They also begin to wonder whether they have the right to obtain for themselves or their fellowmen an "easy death," which would shorten suffering and which seems to them more in harmony with human dignity.
A number of episcopal conferences have raised questions on this subject with the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The congregation, having sought the opinion of experts on the various aspects of euthanasia, now wishes to respond to the bishops’ question with the present declaration, in order to help them to give correct teaching to the faithful entrusted to their care and to offer them elements for reflection that they can present to the civil authorities with regard to this very serious matter.
The considerations set forth in the present document concern in the first place all those who place their faith and hope in Christ, who through his life, death and resurrection has given a new meaning to existence and especially to the death of the Christian, as St. Paul says: "If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord" (Rom. 14:8, cf. Phil. 1:20).
As for those who profess other religions, many will agree with us that faith in God the creator, provider and lord of life -- if they share this belief -- confers a lofty dignity upon every human person and guarantees respect for him or her.
It is hoped that this declaration will meet with the approval of many people of good will, who philosophical or ideological differences notwithstanding, have nevertheless a lively awareness of the rights of the human person. These rights have often in fact been proclaimed in recent years through declarations issued by international congresses;3 and since it is a question here of fundamental rights inherent in every human person, it is obviously wrong to have recourse to arguments from political pluralism or religious freedom in order to deny the universal value of those rights.
I. The Value of Human Life
Human life is the basis of all goods and is the necessary source and condition of every human activity and of all society. Most people regard life as something sacred and hold that no one may dispose of it at will, but believers see in life something greater, namely a gift of God’s love, which they are called upon to preserve and make fruitful. And it is this latter consideration that gives rise to the following consequences:
1. No one can make an attempt on the life of an innocent person without opposing God’s love for that person, without violating a fundamental right, and therefore without committing a crime of the utmost gravity.4
2. Everyone has the duty to lead his or her life in accordance with God’s plan. That life is entrusted to the individual as a good that must bear fruit already here on earth, but that finds its full perfection only in eternal life.
3. Intentionally causing one’s own death, or suicide, is therefore equally as wrong as murder; such an action on the part of a person is to be considered as a rejection of God’s sovereignty and loving plan. Furthermore, suicide is also often a refusal of love for self, the denial of the natural instinct to live, a flight from the duties of justice and charity owed to one’s neighbor, to various communities or to the whole of society -- although, as is generally recognized, at times there are psychological factors present that can diminish responsibility or even completely remove it.
However, one must clearly distinguish suicide from that sacrifice of one’s life whereby for a higher cause, such as God’s glory, the salvation of souls or the service of one’s brethren, a person offers his or her own life or puts it in danger (cf. Jn. 15:14).
II. Euthanasia
In order that the question of euthanasia can be properly dealt with, it is first necessary to define the words used.
Etymologically speaking, in ancient times euthanasia meant an easy death without severe suffering. Today one no longer thinks of this original meaning of the word, but rather of some intervention of medicine whereby the sufferings of sickness or of the final agony are reduced, sometimes also with the danger of suppressing life prematurely. Ultimately, the word euthanasia is used in a more particular sense to mean "mercy killing," for the purpose of putting an end to extreme suffering, or saving abnormal babies, the men-tally ill or the incurable sick from the prolongation, perhaps for many years, of a miserable life, which could impose too heavy a burden on their families or on society.
It is therefore necessary to state clearly in what sense the word is used in the present document.
By euthanasia is understood an action or an omission which of itself or by intention causes death, in order that all suffering may in this way be eliminated. Euthanasia’s terms of reference, therefore, are to be found in the intention of the will and in the methods used.
It is necessary to state firmly once more that 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. For it is a question of the violation of the divine law, an offense against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life and an attack on humanity.
It may happen that by reason of prolonged and barely tolerable pain, for deeply personal or other reasons, people may be led to believe that they can legitimately ask for death or obtain it for others. Although in these cases the guilt of the individual may be reduced or completely absent, nevertheless the error of judgment into which the conscience falls, perhaps in good faith, does not change the nature of this act of killing, which will always be in itself something to be rejected.
The pleas of gravely ill people who sometimes ask for death are not to be understood as implying a true desire for euthanasia; in fact it is almost always a case of an anguished plea for help and love. What a sick person needs, besides medical care, is love, the human and supernatural warmth with which the sick person can and ought to be surrounded by all those close to him or her, parents and children, doctors and nurses.
III. The Meaning of Suffering for Christians and the Use of Pain-killers
Death does not always come in dramatic circumstances after barely tolerable sufferings. Nor do we have to think only of extreme cases. Numerous testimonies which confirm one another lead one to the conclusion that nature itself has made provision to render more bearable at the moment of death separations that would be terribly painful to a person in full health.
Hence it is that a prolonged illness, advanced old age, or a state of loneliness or neglect can bring about psychological conditions that facilitate the acceptance of death.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that death, often preceded or accompanied by severe and prolonged suffering, is something which naturally causes people anguish.
Physical suffering is certainly an avoidable element of the human condition; on the biological level, it constitutes a warning of which no one denies the usefulness; but, since it affects the human psychological makeup, it often exceeds its own biological usefulness and so can become so severe as to cause the desire to remove it at any cost.
According to Christian teaching, however, suffering, especially suffering during the last moments of life, has a special place in God’s saving plan; it is in fact a sharing in Christ’s passion and a union with the redeeming sacrifice which he offered in obedience to the father’s will. Therefore one must not be surprised if some Christians prefer to moderate their use of painkillers, in order to accept voluntarily at least a part of their sufferings and thus associate themselves in a conscious way with the sufferings of Christ crucified (cf. Mt. 27:34).
Nevertheless it would be imprudent to impose a heroic way of acting as a general rule. On the contrary, human and Christian prudence suggest for the majority of sick people the use of medicines capable of alleviating or suppressing pain, even though these may cause as a secondary effect semi-consciousness and reduced lucidity. As for those who are not in a state to express themselves, one can reasonably presume that they wish to take these painkillers, and have them administered according to the doctor’s advice.
But the intensive use of pain-killers is not without difficulties, because the phenomenon of habituation generally makes it necessary to increase their dosage in order to maintain their efficacy. At this point it is fitting to recall a declaration by Pius XII, which retains its full force. In answer to a group of doctors who had put the question: "Is the suppression of pain and consciousness by the use of narcotics...permitted by religion and morality to the doctor and the patient (even at the approach of death and if one foresees that the use of narcotics will shorten life)?"
The pope said: "If no other means exist, and if, in the given circumstances, this does not prevent the carrying out of other religious and moral duties: Yes."5 In this case, of course, death is in no way intended or sought even if the risk of it is reasonably taken; the intention is simply to relieve pain effectively, using for this purpose painkillers available to medicine.
However, painkillers that cause unconsciousness need special consideration. For a person not only has to be able to satisfy his or her moral duties and family obligations; he or she also has to prepare himself or herself with full consciousness for meeting Christ. Thus Pius XII warns: "It is not right to deprive the dying person of consciousness without a serious reason."6
IV. Due Proportion in the Use of Remedies
Today it is very important to protect, at the moment of death, both the dignity of the human person and the Christian concept of life against a technological attitude that threatens to become an abuse. Thus some people speak of a "right to die," which is an expression that does not mean the right to procure death either by one’s own hand or by means of someone else, as one pleases, but rather the right to die peacefully with human and Christian dignity. From this point of view, the use of therapeutic means can sometimes pose problems.
In numerous cases, the complexity of the situation can be such as to cause doubts about the way ethical principles should be applied. In the final analysis, it pertains to the conscience either of the sick person, or of those qualified to speak in the sick person’s name, or of the doctors to decide in the light of moral obligations and of the various aspects of the case.
Everyone has the duty to care for his or her own health or to seek such care from others. Those whose task it is to care for the sick must do so conscientiously and administer the remedies that seem necessary or useful.
However, is it necessary in all circumstances to have recourse to all possible remedies?
In the past, moralists replied that one is never obliged to use "extraordinary" means. This reply, which as a principle still holds good, is perhaps less clear today by reason of the imprecision of the term and the rapid progress made in the treatment of sickness. Thus some people prefer to speak of "proportionate" and "disproportionate" means.
In any case, it will be possible to make a correct judgment as to the means by studying the type of treatment to be used, its degree of complexity or risk, its cost and the possibilities of using it, and comparing these elements with the result that can be expected, taking into account the state of the sick person and his or her physical and moral resources.
In order to facilitate the application of these general principles, the following clarifications can be added:
|
If there are no other sufficient remedies, it is permitted, with the patient’s consent, to have recourse to the means provided by the most advanced medical techniques, even if these means are still at the experimental stage and are not without a certain risk. By accepting them, the patient can even show generosity in the service of humanity. |
|
It is also permitted, with the patient’s consent, to interrupt these means where the results fall short of expectations. But for such a decision to be made, account will have to be taken of the reasonable wishes of the patient’s family, as also of the advice of the doctors who are specially competent in the matter. The latter may in particular judge that the investment in instruments and personnel is disproportionate to the results foreseen; they may also judge that the techniques applied impose on the patient strain or suffering out of proportion with the benefits which he or she may gain from such techniques. |
|
It is also permissible to make do with the normal means that medicine can offer. Therefore one cannot impose on anyone the obligation to have recourse to a technique which is already in use but which carries a risk or is burdensome. Such a refusal is not the equivalent of suicide; on the contrary, it should be considered as an acceptance of the human condition, or a wish to avoid the application of a medical procedure disproportionate to the results that can be expected, or a desire not to impose excessive expense on the family or the community. |
|
When inevitable death is imminent in spite of the means used, it is permitted in conscience to take the decision to refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome pro-longation of life, so long as the normal care due the sick person in similar cases is not interrupted. In such circumstances the doctor has no reason to reproach himself with failing to help the person in danger. |
Conclusion
The norms contained in the present declaration are inspired by a profound desire to serve people in accordance with the plan of the Creator. Life is a gift of God and on the other hand, death is unavoidable; it is necessary therefore that we, without in any way hastening the hour of death, should be able to accept it with full responsibility and dignity. It is true that death marks the end of our earthly existence, but at the same time it opens the door to immortal life. Therefore all must prepare themselves for this event in the light of human values, and Christians even more so in the light of faith.
As for those who work in the medical profession, they ought to neglect no means of making all their skill available to the sick and the dying; but they should also remember how much more necessary it is to provide them with the comfort of boundless kindness and heartfelt charity. Such service to people is also service to Christ the Lord, who said: "As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me" (Mt. 25:40).
At the audience granted to the undersigned prefect, His Holiness Pope John Paul II approved this declaration, adopted at the ordinary meeting of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and ordered its publication.
Rome, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, May 5, 1980.
Cardinal Franjo Seper, Prefect
Archbishop Jerome Hame, O.P., Secretary
1 "Declaration on Procured Abortion," Nov. 18, 1974: AAS 66 (1974), pp. 730-747
2 Pius XII, "Address to those attending the Congress of the International Union of Catholic Women's Leagues, " Sept. 11, 1947: AAS 39 (1947), p. 483 "Address to Midwives," Oct 29, 1951: AAS 43 (1951), pp. 835-854; "Speech to the Members of the International Office of Military Medicine Documentation," Oct. 19, 1953: AAS 45 (1953), pp.844-845; "Address to those taking part in the ninth Congress of the Italian Anaesthesiological Society," Feb. 24, 1957: AAS 49 (1957), p. 146: cf. Also "Address on Re-animation," Nov. 24, 1957: AAS 49 (1957), pp. 1027-1033; Paul VI, "Address to the Members of the U.N. Special Committee on Apartheid," May 22, 1974: AAS 66 (1974), p. 346; John Paul II: "Address to the Bishops of the United States of America," Oct. 5, 1979: AAS 71 (1979), p. 1225.
3 One thinks especially of Recommendation 779 (1976) on the rights of the sick and dying, of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe at its 27th ordinary session; cf. Sipeca, no. 1, Mary 1977, pp.14-15.
4 We leave aside completely the problems of the death penalty and of war, which involve specific considerations that do not concern the present subject.
5 Pius XII, "Address," Feb. 24, 1957: AAS 49 (1957), p. 147.
6 Pius XII, ibid., p. 145, cf. "Address," Sept. 9, 1958: AAS 50 (1958), p. 694.
The Vatican’s Summary of "Evangelium Vitae"
"While realistically countering unprecedented threats to life and the spread of a ‘culture of death,’" the primary intention of Pope John Paul II’s 11th encyclical, "Evangelium Vitae" (The Gospel of Life), "is to proclaim the good news of the value and dignity of each human life, of its grandeur and worth," says a summary the Vatican released with the encyclical March 30. The summary takes note of the encyclical’s "promotion of a ‘culture of life’ in which human freedom will find its authentic meaning by joining forces with truth, life and love." This culture "needs new lifestyles which will show respect for the dignity of every individual, especially the weakest, which will recognize the value of human sexuality in the development of the person and which will accept the mysterious meaning of suffering and of death." The summary describes this encyclical as a document "presented with great doctrinal authority: It is not only an expression--like every other encyclical--of the ordinary magisterium of the pope, but also of the episcopal collegiality which was manifested first in the extraordinary consistory of cardinals in April 1991 and subsequently in a consultation of all the bishops of the Catholic Church, who unanimously and firmly agree with the teaching imparted in it." The Vatican summary of the encyclical follows.
From its very title, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), the new encyclical of Pope John Paul II demonstrates its highly positive character and its great spiritual thrust. While realistically counter-ing unprecedented threats to life and the spread of a "culture of death," the primary intention of the papal document is to proclaim the good news of the value and dignity of each human life, of its grandeur and worth, also in its temporal phase. The cause of life is in fact at the same time the cause of the Gospel and the cause of man, the cause entrusted to the church.
The encyclical is presented with great doctrinal authority: It is not only an expression--like every other encyclical--of the ordinary magisterium of the pope, but also of the episcopal collegiality which was manifested first in the extraordinary consistory of cardinals in April 1991 and subsequently in a consultation of all the bishops of the Catholic Church, who unanimously and firmly agree with the teaching imparted in it (No. 5). This teaching is in substance "a precise and vigorous reaffirmation of the value of human life and its inviolability," and also "a pressing appeal addressed to each and every person in the name of God: Respect, protect, love and serve life, every human life! Only in this direction will you find justice, development, true freedom, peace and happiness" (No. 5).
1. Present-day Threats to Human Life
The first chapter of the papal document is devoted to an analysis of the lights and the shadows of the present-day situation with regard to human life.
First there is a denunciation of the proliferation and increased intensity of threats to life, especially when life is weak and defenseless at its very beginning and at its end: abortion, immoral experimentation on human embryos, euthanasia. There is a clear description of the unprecedented and specific features of these crimes against life: At the level of public opinion they are claimed to be rights based on individual freedom; there is a trend toward their recognition in law; they are carried out with the help of medical science. This involves a distortion of society’s nature and purpose and of the constitutional state itself: Democracy, if detached from its moral foundations and linked to an unlimited ethical relativism, risks becoming the pretext for a war of the stronger against the weaker; the roles of health care personnel tend to be subverted: Instead of respectful service of life, they lend them-selves to actions which bring about death.
The causes of this "culture of death" which threatens man and civilization are traced by the Holy Father to a perverse idea of freedom, which is seen as disconnected from any reference to truth and objective good, and which asserts itself in an individualistic way, without the constitutive link of relationships with others. Associated with this is a practical materialism which gives priority to having over being, the satisfaction of personal pleasure over respect for those who are weak, and which ends by considering life worthwhile only to the extent that it is productive and enjoyable; suffering is considered useless, sacrifice for the sake of others unjustified. Underlying all this is a loss of the sense of God. But "when the sense of God is lost, there is also a tendency to lose the sense of man" (No. 21).
These threats are interpreted by the pope in the context of that perennial conflict between life and death which emerged at the very beginning of human history and which sacred Scripture testifies to in the events of Cain, who because of envy "rose up against his brother Abel and killed him" (Gn. 4:8); of the ancient pharaoh who, viewing as a threat the increasing numbers of the children of Israel, ordered that every newborn male of the Hebrew women should be put to death; of Herod who, out of fear for his throne, "sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem" (Mt. 2:16); and finally of the apocalyptic conflict in which "the dragon stood before the woman...that he might devour her child when she brought it forth" (Rv. 12:4). Human life, especially when weak and defenseless, has always been threatened by the forces of evil.
Although the blood of Abel and of all innocent victims of violence cries out to God, the precious blood of Christ, the sign of his self-gift (Jn. 13:1), "speaks more eloquently" (Heb. 12:24). It reveals the value of human life in the eyes of God, who for the sake of life gave his only Son, "that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life" (Jn. 3:16). This is the basis of the absolute certainty that, according to God’s plan, the victory will belong to life. In fact there are already signs of this victory, signs of hope, sometimes more hidden, less obstrusive, but significant: families which freely accept abandoned children and older people; volunteer work in service of life; movements and programs of social consciousness raising in support of life; generous and respectful involvement in the medical profession and in scientific research; sensitivity to bioethical questions and ecology; a growing aversion to the death penalty. Above all, the daily gestures of welcome, sacrifice and selfless concern shown to the "little ones" and to the most needy are spreading around the world "the civilization of life and of love."
In this dramatic conflict, which has lasted throughout history and is taking on new characteristics in our time, God’s call is heard clearly and powerfully: "See, I have set before you this day life and good, death and evil...Therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live." (Dt. 30:15, 19).
2. Life as Gift
The second chapter is in the form of a meditation on the Christian message regarding life. In fact, "the Gospel of life is something concrete and personal, for it consists in the proclamation of the very person of Jesus" (No. 29). As St. Paul says, it was "our Savior Christ Jesus who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel" (2 Tm. 1:10).
The light of revelation, which reaches its fullness in Jesus Christ, confirms and completes all that human reason can grasp concerning the value of human life. Precious and fragile, full of promises and threatened by suffering and death, man’s life on earth bears within itself that seed of immortal life planted by the Creator in the human heart (cf. No. 31). That life is the object of God’s tender and intense love, especially in the poor, the weak and the defenseless: "Truly great must be the value of human life if the Son of God has taken it up and made it the instrument of the salvation of humanity!" (No. 33).
At this point we come to the decisive question, Why is life good?
Why is it always good? The answer is simple and clear: because it is a gift from the Creator, who breathed into man the divine breath, thus making the human person the image of God. While sin darkens life by threatening it with death and throwing into doubt its nature as a gift, redemption, achieved in the incarnation, passion, death and resurrection of Jesus, redeems its worth, lifting it up to unheard-of heights in the prospect of the gift of eternal life. Gratuitously the Father calls each individual, in his Son, to partake of the fullness of divine life by becoming "sons and daughters in the Son." The sublime dignity of human life thus shines forth not only in the light of its origin, but even more so in the light of its destiny.
Earthly life, which is at once both relativized and given new value, opens up to the prospect of eternal life. It is not an absolute value in itself: It is entrusted to man as a beginning to be made fruitful for eternity as a first gift which will reach its fullness if, after the example of Christ and with his power, it succeeds in becoming a gift of love of God and of others. This is the truest and most profound meaning of life: The gift is accomplished in self-giving. "For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the Gospel’s will save it" (Mk. 8:35). The martyrs freely gave their lives out of love, showing that our earthly existence is not something absolute to which we should cling at all costs. "No one, however, can arbitrarily choose whether to live or die; the absolute master of such a decision is the Creator alone, in whom ‘we live and move and have our being’ (Acts 17:28)" (No. 47).
3. Life as Responsibility
As a precious and fragile gift which is meant to bear fruits of love, life is entrusted to man’s responsibility. From its very beginning until its natural end, life is sacred and inviolable: It belongs to the Lord, it is under his special protection and individuals cannot dispose of it at their own whim. "From man in regard to his fellow man (the Lord) will demand an accounting for human life" (Gn. 9:5). This original truth, testified to by all of humanity’s great religious and philosophical traditions, this truth which lies in the depths of every individual’s conscience like an echo of the voice of the Creator, is also at the center of the covenant between God and the people of Israel. The commandment "you shall not kill," which expresses it in the form of a concise command, is at the heart of the Ten Commandments given at Sinai (cf. Ex. 34:28). In the New Testament, Jesus not only repeated this commandment as the first to be kept in order to enter into life (cf. Mt. 19:16-18), but also showed its positive implications (cf. Mt. 5:21ff), which involve the heart and which extend to everyone, to the point of loving even one’s enemies (cf. Mt. 5:44). Thus, "only when people are open to the fullness of the truth about God, man and history will the words ‘you shall not kill’ shine forth once more as a good for man in himself and in his relation with others" (No. 48).
It is this commandment not to kill, in the light of the Gospel of life, that the third chapter of the encyclical seeks to put forward once more, applying it to the unprecedented situations in which life is being threatened today. The pope wishes to reaffirm the absolute and permanent value of the commandment not to kill which is at the heart of God’s covenant with man. He shows that the commandment is not a limit but a gift, which invites freedom to follow the paths of respect, service and love of life. The negative formulation of the moral imperative indicates the outer limit which can never be crossed, but implicitly it encourages a positive and constructive attitude, one of commitment in favor of man.
After recalling certain traditional moral distinctions concerning the legitimacy of self-defense against an unjust aggressor and concerning capital punishment, of which morally justifiable applications today are said to be "very rare, if not practically nonexistent" (No. 56), the papal document proposes certain moral truths in relation to respect for human life.
In the first place it declares "the direct and voluntary taking of all innocent human life" as "always gravely immoral" (No. 57). This principle is then applied to abortion and euthanasia. Regarding procured abortion (defined as "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" [No. 58]), the encyclical affirms that "direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder" (No. 62). This moral judgment is also to be applied to forms of intervention on human embryos which, although carried out for purposes legitimate in themselves, inevitably involve the killing of those embryos, either in experimentation or their use and the use of human fetuses as "biological material" or as providers of organs or tissue for transplants (cf. No. 63). Euthanasia, which is defined as "an act or omission which of itself and by intention causes death with the purpose of eliminating all suffering," and is carefully distinguished from so-called "aggressive medical treatment" and from "methods of palliative care," is called "a grave violation of the law of God" (No. 65).
Here we are speaking of doctrinal affirmations of very high magisterial authority, presented with particular solemnity by the supreme pontiff. Exercising his own magisterial authority as the successor of Peter, in communion with the bishops of the Catholic Church, he "confirms" (or also, in the case of abortion, "declares") a doctrine "based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God," "transmitted by the church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium". In this connection, in the case of each of the three doctrinal formulations there is a significant reference in a note to the teaching of he Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium, which in Paragraph 25 declares that the bishops, "even though dispersed throughout the world, but preserving for all that among themselves and with Peter’s successor the bond of communion," when "in their authoritative teaching concerning matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitively," "proclaim infallibly the doctrine of Christ."
Pope John Paul II does not fail to mention the tragic circumstances and the pressure from the family, the living conditions and social environment which sometimes mark those very serious choices against life and thereby diminish the moral responsibility of the person making them. These choices are sometimes also cloaked with specious justifications and "false mercy," while choices in favor if life sometimes appear not only difficult but even heroic. It is for this reason that the pope is urging a proclamation of the Gospel concerning life, its sacred value and inviolability, the duty to respect and care for it, and its value even in suffering and in the face of death.
The relationship between civil law and the moral law is next examined. Indeed, "one of the characteristics of present-day attacks on human life...consists in the trend to demand a legal justification for them" (No. 68). The encyclical recognizes that the task of civil law is different and more limited than that of the moral law. Civil law cannot take the place of conscience or dictate moral norms, but it has the specific role of "ensuring the common good of people through the recognition and defense of their fundamental rights, and the promotion of peace and of public morality" (No. 71). Therefore, although it sometimes has to choose not to put a stop to something which, were it prohibited, would cause more serious harm, it can never presume to legitimize, as the right of individuals, the offense inflicted on other persons through the disregarding of so fundamental a right as the right to life. In this sense while taking different situations into account, civil law must safeguard the moral foundation of justice and of respect for everyone’s inviolable and inalienable rights, without which the will of the stronger replaces the import of the rights of each individual. Democracy cannot be defined simply by a moral basis of respect for all and especially for the rights of the weakest and the most defense-less, those who have no voice and no vote.
The legal norms legitimizing abortion and euthanasia, which are radically opposed to justice, the common good and the fundamental rights of the individual, lack authentic juridical validity. In the face of these laws, the right to conscientious objection at least must be recognized, this being a serious obligation for the Christian, who cannot formally cooperate in evil. Consequently, there remains the commitment of everyone to promote more just legislation, which will change laws contrary to the right to life and its inviolability.
4. Life as a Task to Be Promoted
But the commandment "you shall not kill" establishes only the point of departure of a journey to true freedom, a journey which must lead to the active promotion of life, the development of attitudes and modes of behavior which serve life. It is to this positive and constructive prospect that the fourth and final chapter of the document of Pope John Paul II is devoted: "for the new culture of human life."
First of all, the pope points out that the "Gospel of life" is at the heart of the evangelizing mission of the church, which must proclaim Jesus, the "Word of life (1 Jn. 1:1), the one in whom "the life was made manifest" (1 Jn. 1:2). The church, defined in a new and expressive way as "the people of life," has the task of proclaiming, celebrating and serving life.
Against doubts, skepticism, obscurity and falsehoods, it is a question of proclaiming in its entirety the joyful message of the value of life; the commandment "you shall not kill" is also part of this message. Ever nourished by the word of God the church has the primary task of ensuring that the Gospel of Life reaches every heart of every man and woman, and that it finds its way into the hidden recesses of the whole of society.
She is called also to celebrate the gift of life, considering it with a contemplative and grateful spirit in the light of God’s love made manifest in his son Jesus. The sacraments of the church in an eminent manner, but also the many rituals of various popular and cultural traditions as well as those of everyday life must be means of experiencing joy for this gift, means which help to sustain people in moments of trial and by which their gaze is fixed on the Creator, from whom life comes and to whom it returns.
The mission of the Christian and of the church on behalf of life is fulfilled through the service of charity because charity leads us "to show care for all life and for the life of everyone" (No. 87), with a profound attitude of solidarity in every condition and situation, without prejudice or discrimination. Mention is made of the extraordinary history of charity in the church, which introduced into society a host of organizations at the service of life. The Holy Father exhorts us to strengthen and continue today the numerous projects which have been under-taken in this regard, calling for creative innovation in responding adequately to new challenges. In the area of professional health care, volunteer services, education, social involvement and political commitment and in the face of complex demographic problems, it is a question of fostering mature attitudes and finding solutions which respect life.
In particular, at the center of attention must be the family, the "sanctuary of life," in which life is welcomed, nourished, brought up and supported, and taken care of in sickness. However, the family needs to be helped by a social context which is favorable to these values and by policies which promote its primary and irreplaceable role.
It is a question, the pope affirms, of bringing about a true transformation of culture: the promotion of a "culture of life," in which human freedom will find its authentic meaning by joining forces with truth, life and love. This culture needs new lifestyles which will show respect for the dignity of every individual, especially the weakest, which will recognize the value of human sexuality in the development of the person, and which will accept the mysterious meaning of suffering and of death. A very special task is entrusted to women, who are particularly close to the mystery of life, who are called to be its guardians and to reveal its fruitfulness when that task matures into relationships marked by unselfish giving and willing service. These are the demands of a "new feminism," which, free from individualism, will favor the culture of life. The pope addresses particularly moving words to women who have had abortions. He invites them to be open to repentance, with humility and trust (cf. No. 99). Prayer and fasting, finally, are the great resources which will bring about the purification of all hearts in this great undertaking of proclaiming the Gospel of life on behalf of the whole human society and for the sake of peace (No. 101).
This important magisterial document of Pope John Paul II closes with a trusting appeal to Mary, the "mother of life." Contemplating the scene in the Book of Revelation of the struggle between the woman who is about to give birth and the dragon which sets a snare for the life of the child, the pope invites us to recognize that throughout history "life is always at the center of a great struggle" (No. 104). But in the mutual relationship between the motherhood of Mary and her own motherhood toward all men and women, the church finds a source of great hope. Mary is the "living word of consolation" on history’s difficult journey: To her, with filial confidence, the pope entrusts the cause of life.
