1. INTRODUCTION

Introductio

        The Gospel of Life is at the heart of Jesus’ message. Lovingly received day after day by the Church, it is to be preached with dauntless fidelity as “good news” to the people of every age and culture.

1. Evangelium Vitae penitus implicatum insidet in Iesu nuntio. Ab Ecclesia amanter cotidie susceptum, animosa id oportet fidelitate enuntietur velut redditum nuntium hominibus cuiusvis aetatis et cuiuslibet cultus humani formae.

At the dawn of salvation, it is the Birth of a Child which is proclaimed as joyful news: “I bring you good news of a great joy which will come to all the people; for to you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, who is. Christ the Lord” (Lk 2:10-11). The source of this “great joy” is the Birth of the Saviour; but Christmas also reveals the full meaning of every human birth, and the joy which accompanies the Birth of the Messiah is thus seen to be the foundation and fulfilment of joy at every child born into the world (cf. Jn 16:21).

Incipiente ipsa hominum redemptione, infantis cuiusdam ortus tamquam laetifica omnino praedicatur res: “Ecce enim evangelizo vobis gaudium magnum, quod erit omni populo, quia natus est vobis hodie Salvator, qui est Christus Dominus, in civitate David” (Luc. 2, 10-11).Ut “magna” autem haec effunderetur “laetitia” Servatoris nimirum ipsius effecit exortus; attamen in Christi die Natali plena detegitur significatio ortus cuiusque hominis, proindeque messianicum illud gaudium videtur quasi fundamentum complementumque simul laetationis super omni nascente nomine (Cfr. Io. 16, 21).

When he presents the heart of his redemptive mission, Jesus says: “I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly” (Jn 10:10). In truth, he is referring to that “new” and “eternal” life which consists in communion with the Father, to which every person is freely called in the Son by the power of the Sanctifying Spirit. It is precisely in this “life” that all the aspects and stages of human life achieve their full significance.

Salutiferi muneris sui praecipuam exhibens partem dicit Iesus: “Ego veni, ut vitam habeant et abundantius habeant” (Ibid. 10, 10). De vita Ille revera loquitur “nova” atque “aeterna”, quae ex communione consistit cum Patre, ad quam unusquisque homo ultro in Filio vocatur per Sanctificantem Spiritum. Sed in tali nominatim “vita” plenum suum intellectum omnia consequuntur vitae humanae elementa ac tempora.

[2.] THE INCOMPARABLE WORTH
of the HUMAN PERSON

Incomparabilis personae humanae praestantia

        2. Man is called to a fullness of life which far exceeds the dimensions of his earthly existence, because it consists in sharing the very life of God. The loftiness of this supernatural vocation reveals the greatness and the inestimable value of human life even in its temporal phase. Life in time, in fact, is the fundamental condition, the initial stage and an integral part of the entire unified process of human existence. It is a process which, unexpectedly and undeservedly, is enlightened by the promise and renewed by the gift of divine life, which will reach its full realization in eternity (cf. 1 Jn 3:1-2). At the same time, it is precisely this supernatural calling which highlights the relative character of each individual’s earthly life. After all, life on earth is not an “ultimate” but a “penultimate” reality; even so, it remains a sacred reality entrusted to us, to be preserved with a sense of responsibility and brought to perfection in love and in the gift of ourselves to God and to our brothers and sisters.

2. Quandam in vitae plenitudinem homo invitatur quae fines prorsus terrestris eius egreditur vitae, quoniam participatione Dei ipsius vitae continetur. Supernaturalis huius vocationis excelsitas magnitudinem porro vitae humanae ac pretium temporali etiam in illius spatio aperit. Primaria namque condicio, principium ipsum et pars integrans totius et unici processus humanae exsistentiae est vita in tempore. Immerito quidem et inopinato illustratur idem processus pollicitatione vitae divinae et vitae dono renovatur, quod plenam sui consummationem aeterno consequetur in aevo (Cfr. ibid. 3, 1-2). Simul vero ipsa haec supernaturalis appellatio variantem vitae terrenae indolem effert viri omnis et mulieris. Est enim res non omnino “ultima” verum “proxima a postrema”; attamen sacra res est, nobis interea credita quam ex officii nostri conscientia custodiamus atque ad consummationem deducamus per amorem et nostri ipsorum donum Deo factum ac fratribus.

The Church knows that this Gospel of life, which she has received from her Lord,[1] has a profound and persuasive echo in the heart of every person--believer and non-believer alike--because it marvellously fulfils all the heart’s expectations while infinitely surpassing them. Even in the midst of difficulties and uncertainties, every person sincerely open to truth and goodness can, by the light of reason and the hidden action of grace, come to recognize in the natural law written in the heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15) the sacred value of human life from its very beginning until its end, and can affirm the right of every human being to have this primary good respected to the highest degree. Upon the recognition of this right, every human community and the political community itself are founded.

Novit Ecclesia illud Evangelium vitae sibi a Domino suo commendatum (Dictio Evangelium vitae ut talis in libris divinis reapse non invenitur. Ea tamen bene biblici nuntii necessariae parti respondet), intus resonare permovereque unumquemque hominem sive credit sive non, quandoquidem admirabili modo ei respondet, dum eius simul exspectationes infinita quadam ratione excedit. Valet enim quilibet homo, inter difficultates licet ac dubitationes, ad veritatem tamen ex animo apertus adque bonitatem, adiutus rationis ipsius lumine et arcana gratiae impulsione, pervenire eo quidem usque ut legem naturalem in corde inscriptam (Cfr. Rom. 2, 14-15) agnoscat, sacrum vitae humanae bonum a primis initiis ad finem ipsum, necnon ius cuiusque adserat hominis ut hoc suum principale bonum summopere observatum videat. In eiusdem ideo iuris agnitione hominum nititur consortio ipsaque politica communitas.

In a special way, believers in Christ must defend and promote this right, aware as they are of the wonderful truth recalled by the Second Vatican Council: “By his incarnation the Son of God has united himself in some fashion with every human being”.[2] This saving event reveals to humanity not only the boundless love of God who “so loved the world that he gave his only Son” (Jn 3:16), but also the incomparable value of every human person.

In Christum autem credentes praesertim hoc ius defendant opus est atque provehant, memores scilicet mirificae illius veritatis in Concilio Vaticano II commemoratae: “Ipse enim, Filius Dei, incarnatione sua cum omni homine quodammodo Se univit” (Gaudium et Spes, 22). Etenim hoc in salutis eventu hominibus non modo amor Dei interminatus recluditur qui “sic... dilexit... mundum, ut Filium suum unigenitum daret” (Io. 3, 16), verum et incomparabilis singulorum hominum excellentia.

The Church, faithfully contemplating the mystery of the Redemption, acknowledges this value with ever new wonder.[3] She feels called to proclaim to the people of all times this “Gospel”, the source of invincible hope and true joy for every period of history. The Gospel of God’s love for man, the Gospel of the dignity of the person and the Gospel of life are a single and indivisible Gospel.

Redemptionis arcanum sedulo ipsa perscrutata Ecclesia, novo semper cum animi stupore (Cfr. IOANNIS PAULI PP. II Redemptor Hominis, 10) illud bonum percipit seque vocari intellegit hominibus aetatum omnium hoc ad nuntiandum “evangelium”, spei insuperabilis originem verique gaudii pro unaquaque historiae aetate. Amoris Dei erga homines Evangelium, dignitatis personae Evangelium atque vitae ipsius Evangelium unicum tandem sunt indivisibile Evangelium.

For this reason, man--living man--represents the primary and fundamental way for the Church.[4]

Homo idcirco ipse, vivens nempe homo, praecipuam primamque Ecclesiae efficit viam (Cfr. IOANNIS PAULI PP. II Redemptor Hominis, 14).

[3-4] NEW THREATS to HUMAN LIFE

Novae hominum vitae impendentes minationes

        3. Every individual, precisely by reason of the mystery of the Word of God who was made flesh (cf. Jn 1:14), is entrusted to the maternal care of the Church. Therefore every threat to human dignity and life must necessarily be felt in the Church’s very heart; it cannot but affect her at the core of her faith in the Redemptive Incarnation of the Son of God, and engage her in her mission of proclaiming the Gospel of life in all the world and to every creature (cf. Mk 16:15).

3. Maternis Ecclesiae curis committitur idcirco quisque homo propter Verbi Dei mysterium quod est caro factum (Cfr. Io. 1, 14). Quam ob rem fieri non potest quin omnis dignitatis hominum vitaeque ipsius minatio tamquam vocis imaginem in Ecclesiae intimo excitet animo, quin eam intra propriam fidem de redimente Filii Dei incarnatione percutiat, quin implicet illam suo in officio Evangelium vitae universum per orbem omnique proferendi creaturae (Cfr. Marc. 16, 15).

Today this proclamation is especially pressing because of the extraordinary increase and gravity of threats to the life of individuals and peoples, especially where life is weak and defenceless. In addition to the ancient scourges of poverty, hunger, endemic diseases, violence and war, new threats are emerging on an alarmingly vast scale.

Insigniter autem illa nuntiatio nos hodie premit, quoniam duplicatae notabiliter et exasperatae minationes sunt hominum populorumque vitae instantes, praesertim quotiens imbecilla ea est nec apte defenditur. Antiquis acerbisque plagis miseriae, inediae, morborum pandemorum, bellorum et violentiae aliae iam novorum omnino generum ac modorum terrificorum accedunt.

The Second Vatican Council, in a passage which retains all its relevance today, forcefully condemned a number of crimes and attacks against human life. Thirty years later, taking up the words of the Council and with the same forcefulness I repeat that condemnation in the name of the whole Church, certain that I am interpreting the genuine sentiment of every upright conscience: “Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practise them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator”.[5]

Vehementer iam deflevit Concilium Vaticanum II, suo quodam in scripto tristius etiam nostra ad tempora pertinente, complura contra vitam humanam scelera et conata. Easdem sententias in Nostram nunc suscipientes partem, triginta post annis, simili vi rursus universae Ecclesiae nomine, una cum illo conciliari congressu ista lamentamur crimina, nihil profecto dubitantes quin omnis rectae conscientiae veros interpretemur sensus: “Quaecumque insuper ipsi vitae adversantur, ut cuiusvis generis homicidia, genocidia, abortus, euthanasia et ipsum voluntarium suicidium; quaecumque humanae personae integritatem violant, ut mutilationes, tormenta corpori mentive inflicta, conatus ipsos animos coërcendi; quaecumque humanam dignitatem offendunt, ut infrahumanae vivendi condiciones, arbitrariae incarcerationes, deportationes, servitus, prostitutio, mercatus mulierum et iuvenum; condiciones quoque laboris ignominiosae, quibus operarii ut mera quaestus instrumenta, non ut liberae et responsabiles personae tractantur: haec omnia et alia huiusmodi probra quidem sunt, ac dum civilizationem humanam inficiunt, magis eos inquinant qui sic se gerunt, quam eos qui iniuriam patiuntur et Creatoris honori maxime contradicunt” (Gaudium et Spes, 27).

Inversion of Values in the Name of

Rights

  4. Unfortunately, this disturbing state of affairs, far from decreasing, is expanding: with the new prospects opened up by scientific and technological progress there arise new forms of attacks on the dignity of the human being. At the same time a new cultural climate is developing and taking hold, which gives crimes against life a new and--if possible--even more sinister character, giving rise to further grave concern: broad sectors of public opinion justify certain crimes against life in the name of the rights of individual freedom, and on this basis they claim not only exemption from punishment but even authorization by the State, so that these things can be done with total freedom and indeed with the free assistance of health-care systems.

4. Conturbans hic rerum prospectus, pro dolor, tantum abest ut imminuatur; ut potius distendatur: novis enim praebitis e scientifica technologicaque progressione facultatibus oriuntur novae simul rationes dignitatem hominis temptandi, aliunde dum nova cultus humani figuratur atque confirmatur condicio, quae criminibus in humanam vitam addit antehac invisam faciem et, si fieri quidem potest, multo etiam praviorem, unde graves aliae nascuntur sollicitudines: namque a magnis iam publicae opinionis partibus quaedam adversus vitam purgantur delicta obtentu singularis iurium libertatis, eaque de causa non impunitas modo defenditur illorum, quin etiam approbatio publicis ab auctoritatibus, ut plena libertate patrentur, immo subsidiis gratuitis ministeriorum valetudinis adiuventur.

All this is causing a profound change in the way in which life and relationships between people are considered. The fact that legislation in many countries, perhaps even departing from basic principles of their Constitutions, has determined not to punish these practices against life, and even to make them altogether legal, is both a disturbing symptom and a significant cause of grave moral decline. Choices once unanimously considered criminal and rejected by the common moral sense are gradually becoming socially acceptable. Even certain sectors of the medical profession, which by its calling is directed to the defence and care of human life, are increasingly willing to carry out these acts against the person. In this way the very nature of the medical profession is distorted and contradicted, and the dignity of those who practise it is degraded. In such a cultural and legislative situation, the serious demographic, social and family problems which weigh upon many of the world’s peoples and which require responsible and effective attention from national and international bodies, are left open to false and deceptive solutions, opposed to the truth and the good of persons and nations.

Inducunt sane haec omnia quendam penitus commutatum vitae ipsius aestimandae modum necnon necessitudinum inter homines iudicandarum. Quod enim normae multarum Civitatum, ab ipsis fortasse recedentes primariis Legum Fundamentalium principiis, nullo pacto puniunt aut legitimam etiam agnoscunt naturam talium usuum contra vitam, signum quoddam est, unde angor animi gignitur, nec levis sane causa gravis morum prolapsionis: quae olim unanimi consensione habebantur consilia criminosa communique proinde reiciebantur honestatis sensu, gradatim sociali iudicio accipiuntur. Ars ipsa medicina, quae natura suapte ac destinatione ad humanae vitae defensionem dirigitur necnon curationem, quibusdam suis rationibus et usibus promptiorem se usque exhibet ad hos actus contra personam exsequendos, sicque faciem detorquet suam, ipsa sibi contra dicit et eorum deicit dignitatem qui eam artem factitant. Similibus porro in culturae legumque adiunctis graviores etiam demographicae sociales familiares quaestiones, quibus plures terrarum populi gravantur et quibus prudentissima debetur actuosaque ponderatio coetuum singulis in nationibus et inter nationes, obiciuntur falsis fallacibusque remediis a veritate sane abhorrentibus necnon ab hominum civitatumque vero bono.

The end result of this is tragic: not only is the fact of the destruction of so many human lives still to be born or in their final stage extremely grave and disturbing, but no less grave and disturbing is the fact that conscience itself, darkened as it were by such widespread conditioning, is finding it increasingly difficult to distinguish between good and evil in what concerns the basic value of human life.

Exitus ad quem devenitur calamitosus prorsus est: si ipsa exstinctio tot vitarum humanarum sive nascentium sive deficientium permovet nos atque conturbat, haud quidem minus movet id turbatque, quod conscientia ipsa, ita late propagatis condicionibus adfecta, aegrius et difficilius usque discrimen inter bonum et malum percipit iis in rebus quae principale tangunt vitae humanae bonum.

[5] IN COMMUNION with ALL the BISHOPS of the WORLD

In communione cum cunctis orbis episcopis

        5. The Extraordinary Consistory of Cardinals held in Rome on 4-7 April 1991 was devoted to the problem of the threats to human life in our day. After a thorough and detailed discussion of the problem and of the challenges it poses to the entire human family and in particular to the Christian community, the Cardinals unanimously asked me to reaffirm with the authority of the Successor of Peter the value of human life and its inviolability, in the light of present circumstances and attacks threatening it today.

5. Huic argumento, nempe rebus vitae humanae nostro tempore insidiantibus, studuit Consistorium Cardinalium extraordinarium Romae peractum inter diem IV et VII mensis Aprilis anno MCMXCI. Fuse accurateque agitata quaestione atque inspectis provocationibus in familiam hominum ac praesertim in christianam communitatem, unanimo consensu a Nobis flagitaverunt Cardinales ut, Beati Petri Successoris auctoritate, praestantiam humanae vitae inviolabilemque eius naturam denuo inculcaremus hodiernis in condicionibus ac temptationibus quae ei minantur.

In response to this request, at Pentecost in 1991 I wrote a personal letter to each of my Brother Bishops asking them, in the spirit of episcopal collegiality, to offer me their cooperation in drawing up a specific document.[6] I am deeply grateful to all the Bishops who replied and provided me with valuable facts, suggestions and proposals. In so doing they bore witness to their unanimous desire to share in the doctrinal and pastoral mission of the Church with regard to the Gospel of life.

Eorum Nos obsecuti precibus sub diem Pentecostes anno MCMXCI epistulam singularem Nostram cuique Fratri Episcopo inscripsimus ut, collegialitatis episcopalis adfectu incitatus, suam Nobis adiutricem adderet operam ad proprium aliquod de hac re contexendum documentum (Cfr. IOANNIS PAULI PP. II Epistula ad omnes fratres in Episcopatu de Evangelio Vitae, die 19 maii 1991; Insegnamenti di Giovanni Paolo II, XIV, 1 (1991) 1293). Intimo ex animo universis Episcopis gratias habemus qui rite responderint Nobisque notiones magni pretii et consilia et propositiones commiserint. Ii sic quoque, consentientes videlicet sibique penitus persuadentes, testati sunt se participes esse doctrinalis ac pastoralis Ecclesiae operis de Evangelio vitae.

In that same letter, written shortly after the celebration of the centenary of the Encyclical Rerum Novarum, I drew everyone’s attention to this striking analogy: “Just as a century ago it was the working classes which were oppressed in their fundamental rights, and the Church very courageously came to their defence by proclaiming the sacrosanct rights of the worker as a person, so now, when another category of persons is being oppressed in the fundamental right to life, the Church feels in duty bound to speak out with the same courage on behalf of those who have no voice. Hers is always the evangelical cry in defence of the world’s poor, those who are threatened and despised and whose human rights are violated”.[7]

Iisdem vero in litteris, paucis nempe diebus post centesimum celebratum annum a documento “Rerum Novarum”, omnium animos traduximus singularem ad hanc similitudinem: “Quem ad modum priore saeculo suis principalibus in iuribus operariorum opprimebatur ordo cuius fortiter quidem causam defendebat Ecclesia, cum ipsius opificis sacra iura personae praedicaret, sic nostra aetate, dum alius hominum ordo suo in iure ad vitam praecipuo opprimitur, sibi necesse percipit esse Ecclesia fortitudine inconcussa iis tribuere vocem quibus non sit. Eius nempe evangelica semper propria est vociferatio pro orbis pauperibus, quotquot periclitantur, aspernuntur suisque iuribus humanis suffocantur” (Cfr. IOANNIS PAULI PP. II Epistula ad omnes fratres in Episcopatu de Evangelio Vitae, die 19 maii 1991; Insegnamenti di Giovanni Paolo II, XIV, 1 (1991) 1294).

Today there exists a great multitude of weak and defenceless human beings, unborn children in particular, whose fundamental right to life is being trampled upon. If, at the end of the last century, the Church could not be silent about the injustices of those times, still less can she be silent today, when the social injustices of the past, unfortunately not yet overcome, are being compounded in many regions of the world by still more grievous forms of injustice and oppression, even if these are being presented as elements of progress in view of a new world order.

Hodie autem hoc in primario iure ad vitam conculcatur hominum debilium indefensorumque multitudo, quales nominatim sunt nondum nati infantes. Si superiore exeunte saeculo coram tum grassantibus iniustitiis haud Ecclesiae tacere licebat, eo quidem minus hodie silere licet, cum socialibus temporis transacti iniuriis, pro dolor nondum dissolutis, tot in locis per orbem graviores etiam offensiones adiunguntur atque oppressiones, quae cum elementis fortasse confunduntur alicuius novi constituendi terrarum ordinis.

The present Encyclical, the fruit of the cooperation of the Episcopate of every country of the world, is therefore meant to be a precise and vigorous reaffirmation of the value of human life and its inviolability, and at the same time a pressing appeal addressed to each and every person, in the name of God: respect, protect, love and serve life, every human life! Only in this direction will you find justice, development, true freedom, peace and happiness!

Quocirca Encyclicae hae Litterae, quas sociata Episcoporum opera omni ex orbis Natione peperit, illuc videlicet spectant ut vitae humanae excellentia eiusque inviolabilitas definite ac firme rursus adseveretur, eodemque tempore ad omnes ac singulos, Dei ipsius nomine, appellatio vehemens dirigatur: verere ac tuere, amato ac sustentato vitam, vitam omnem humanam! Hac sola in via iustitiam reperies et progressionem, libertatem veram, pacem et felicitatem!

May these words reach all the sons and daughters of the Church! May they reach all people of good will who are concerned for the good of every man and woman and for the destiny of the whole of society!

Ad universos utinam hae voces filios perveniant filiasque Ecclesiae! Utinam ad omnes bonae voluntatis homines pertingant, quibus bonum curae est uniuscuiusque viri ac feminae necnon totius societatis humanae sors!

  6. In profound communion with all my brothers and sisters in the faith, and inspired by genuine friendship towards all, I wish to meditate upon once more and proclaim the Gospel of life, the splendour of truth which enlightens consciences, the clear light which corrects the darkened gaze, and the unfailing source of faithfulness and steadfastness in facing the ever new challenges which we meet along our path.

6. Cum singulis in fide fratribus et sororibus intimo modo coniuncti sinceraque erga omnes amicitia moti, iterum Evangelium vitae ponderare cupimus atque enuntiare, quod veritatis splendor est conscientias irradians, praeclarum lumen sanans obscuratum prospectum, fons firmitudinis ac fortitudinis inexhaustus nos hortans ut novis semper obviam procedamus nostro in itinere occurrentibus provocationibus.

As I recall the powerful experience of the Year of the Family, as if to complete the Letter which I wrote “to every particular family in every part of the world”,[8] I look with renewed confidence to every household and I pray that at every level a general commitment to support the family will reappear and be strengthened, so that today too--even amid so many difficulties and serious threats--the family will always remain, in accordance with God’s plan, the “sanctuary of life”.[9]

Cum copiosa denuo perpendimus rerum experimenta per Annum pro Familia percepta, ipsi velut in doctrina perficientes Litteras a Nobis missas ad “unamquamque veram solidamque familiam cuiuslibet terrarum regionis” (IOANNIS PAULI PP. II Gratissimam Sane, 4), respicimus nova quidem cum animi fiducia singulas communitates domesticas et optamus ut renascatur utque omni in ordine corroboretur omnium officium familiam sustinendi, unde hodie quoque ipsa – inter multas versans difficultates ac graves minationes – perpetuo ex Dei consilio servetur tamquam “vitae sacrarium” (EIUSDEM Centesimus Annus, 39).

To all the members of the Church, the people of life and for life, I make this most urgent appeal, that together we may offer this world of ours new signs of hope, and work to ensure that justice and solidarity will increase and that a new culture of human life will be affirmed, for the building of an authentic civilization of truth and love.

Singulis corporis Ecclesiae membris, hominibus de vita ac pro vita, intentissimam movemus hanc invitationem, ut nostro huic orbi nova ministrare coniunctim possimus spei documenta et efficere simul ut iustitia augescat et necessitudinis iunctio inter homines, utque novus percrebrescat civilis cultus vitae humanae ad sinceram veritatis amorisque exaedificandam humanitatem.

[7-28] CHAPTER I
The voice of your brother’s blood cries to me from the ground
PRESENT-DAY THREATS TO HUMAN LIFE

Caput I
VOX SANGUINIS FRATRIS TUI
CLAMAT AD ME DE AGRO
Hodierna vitae humanae intentata pericula

“Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and killed him” (Gen 4:8):
[7-9] THE ROOTS of VIOLENCE AGAINST LIFE

“Consurrexit cain adversus abel fratrem suum et interfecit eum” (Gen. 4, 8): in ipsa violentiae contra vitam origine

         7. “God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living. For he has created all things that they might exist... God created man for incorruption, and made him in the image of his own eternity, but through the devil’s envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his party experience it” (Wis 1:13-14; 2:23-24).

7. “Deus mortem non fecit, nec laetatur in perditione vivorum. Creavit enim, ut essent omnia... Deus creavit hominem in incorruptibilitate; et imaginem similitudinis suae fecit illum. Invidia autem diaboli mors introivit in orbem terrarum; experiuntur autem illam, qui sunt ex parte illius” (Sap. 1, 13-14; 2, 23-24).

The Gospel of life, proclaimed in the beginning when man was created in the image of God for a destiny of full and perfect life (cf. Gen 2:7; Wis 9:2-3), is contradicted by the painful experience of death which enters the world and casts its shadow of meaninglessness over man’s entire existence. Death came into the world as a result of the devil’s envy (cf. Gen 3:1,4-5) and the sin of our first parents (cf. Gen 2:17, 3:17-19). And death entered it in a violent way, through the killing of Abel by his brother Cain: “And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and killed him” (Gen 4:8).

Evangelio vitae, quod iam initio exsonuit conditis ad Dei imaginem hominibus in vitae plenae perfectaeque sortem (Cfr. Gen. 2, 7; Sap. 9, 2-3), pertristis ille repugnavit eventus mortis quae in mundum invasit umbramque coniecit inanitatis in totam hominis vitam. Propter diaboli ipsius malevolentiam (Cfr. Gen. 3, 1. 4-5) ingressa est mors necnon progenitorum delictum (Cfr. ibid. 2, 17; 3, 17-19). Ac violenter intravit per Abelis internecionem a Cain fratre: “Cumque essent in agro, consurrexit Cain adversus Abel fratrem suum et interfecit eum” (Ibid. 4, 8).

This first murder is presented with singular eloquence in a page of the Book of Genesis which has universal significance: it is a page rewritten daily, with inexorable and degrading frequency, in the book of human history.

Prima haec nex illustri praebetur eloquentia in libri Genesis exemplari pagina, quae cotidie sine intermissione, immo vero cum deprimente quadam repetitione retexitur in populorum annalibus.

Let us re-read together this biblical account which, despite its archaic structure and its extreme simplicity, has much to teach us.

Retractare una placet bibliorum paginam hanc quae, quantumvis vetustatem resipiat maximamque simplicitatem, doctrinis sese tamen uberrimam praestat.

“Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a tiller of the ground. In the course of time Cain brought to the Lord an offering of the fruit of the ground, and Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had not regard. So Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell. The Lord said to Cain, ‘Why are you angry and why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it’.

“Et fuit Abel pastor ovium et Cain agricola. Factum est autem post aliquot dies ut offerret Cain de fructibus agri munus Domino. Abel quoque obtulit de primogenitis gregis sui et de adipibus eorum. Et respexit Dominus ad Abel et ad munus eius, ad Cain vero et ad munus illius non respexit. Iratusque est Cain vehementer, et concidit vultus eius. Dixitque Dominus ad eum: «Quare iratus es, et cur concidit facies tua? Nonne si bene egeris, vultum attolles? Sin autem male, in foribus peccatum insidiabitur, et ad te erit appetitus eius, tu autem dominaberis illius».

“Cain said to Abel his brother, ‘Let us go out to the field’. And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and killed him. Then the Lord said to Cain, ‘Where is Abel your brother?’ He said, I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?’ And the Lord said, ‘What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground. And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. When you till the ground, it shall no longer yield to you its strength; you shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth’. Cain said to the Lord, ‘My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, you have driven me this day away from the ground; and from your face I shall be hidden; and I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will slay me’. Then the Lord said to him, ‘Not so! If any one slays Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold’. And the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest any who came upon him should kill him. Then Cain went away from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, east of Eden” (Gen 4:2-16).

Dixitque Cain ad Abel fratrem suum: «Egrediamur foras». Cumque essent in agro, consurrexit Cain adversus Abel fratrem suum et interfecit eum. Et ait Dominus ad Cain: «Ubi est Abel frater tuus?». Qui respondit: «Nescio. Num custos fratris mei sum ego?». Dixitque ad eum: «Quid fecisti? Vox sanguinis fratris tui clamat ad me de agro. Nunc igitur maledictus eris procul ab agro, qui aperuit os suum et suscepit sanguinem fratris tui de manu tua! Cum operatus fueris eum, amplius non dabit tibi fructus suos; vagus et profugus eris super terram». Dixitque Cain ad Dominum: «Maior est poena mea quam ut portem eam. Ecce eicis me hodie a facie agri, et a facie tua abscondar et ero vagus et profugus in terra; omnis igitur, qui invenerit me, occidet me». Dixitque ei Dominus: «Nequaquam ita fiet, sed omnis qui occiderit Cain, septuplum punietur!». Posuitque Dominus Cain signum, ut non eum interficeret omnis qui invenisset eum. Egressusque Cain a facie Domini habitavit in terra Nod ad orientalem plagam Eden” (Gen. 4, 2-16).

        8. Cain was “very angry” and his countenance “fell” because “the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering” (Gen 4:4-5). The biblical text does not reveal the reason why God prefers Abel’s sacrifice to Cain’s. It clearly shows however that God, although preferring Abel’s gift, does not interrupt his dialogue with Cain. He admonishes him, reminding him of his freedom in the face of evil: man is in no way predestined to evil. Certainly, like Adam, he is tempted by the malevolent force of sin which, like a wild beast, lies in wait at the door of his heart, ready to leap on its prey. But Cain remains free in the face of sin. He can and must overcome it: “Its desire is for you, but you must master it” (Gen 4:7).

8. Cain “iratus... est... vehementer” et “concidit vultus eius”, quoniam “respexit Dominus ad Abel et ad munus eius” (Ibid. 4, 4). Causam tacet biblicus locus ob quam muneri Cain Dominus anteposuerit Abel sacrificium; luculenter tamen docet, licet Abel donum praetulerit Deus, colloquium cum Cain haudquaquam interrumpere illum. Admonet igitur eum commonetque libertatis propriae coram malo: nullo modo in antecessum destinatur ad malum homo. Perinde atque Adamus antea, malefico ipse pellicitur peccati impulsu, qui veluti belua ferox ostio insidiatur cordis eius donec rapiat praedam. At liber esse Cain ante peccatum pergit. Valet is illud vincereque debet: “Ad te erit appetitus eius, tu autem dominaberis illius!” (Ibid. 4, 7).

Envy and anger have the upper hand over the Lord’s warning, and so Cain attacks his own brother and kills him. As we read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “In the account of Abel’s murder by his brother Cain, Scripture reveals the presence of anger and envy in man, consequences of original sin, from the beginning of human history. Man has become the enemy of his fellow man”[10]

Superant Domini admonitionem invidia et ira sicque Cain adgreditur fratrem et necat. Legimus ideo in “Catholicae Ecclesiae Catechismo”: “Scriptura, in narranda Abel occisione a fratre Cain perpetrata, inde ab exordio humanae historiae ostendit in homine irae et cupiditatis praesentiam, peccatum originale consecutarum. Homo paris sui factus est inimicus” (Catechismus Catholicae Ecclesiae, n. 2259).

Brother kills brother. Like the first fratricide, every murder is a violation of the “spiritual” kinship uniting mankind in one great family,[11] in which all share the same fundamental good: equal personal dignity. Not infrequently the kinship “of flesh and blood” is also violated; for example when threats to life arise within the relationship between parents and children, such as happens in abortion or when, in the wider context of family or kinship, euthanasia is encouraged or practised.

Fratrem interficit frater. Sicut in primo fratricidio evenit, in singulis deinde homicidiis violatur “spiritalis” cognatio, qua in unam conglobantur homines familiam (Cfr. S. AMBROSII De Noe, 26, 94-96: CSEL 32, 480-481), quandoquidem cuncti participes eiusdem praecipui boni sunt: paris omnium dignitatis. Crebrius etiam “carnis et sanguinis” violatur cognatio, cum pericula vitae vel intra ipsam parentum liberorumque necessitudinem oriuntur, prout in abortu accidit aut cum, latiore in domus affinitatisve regione, fovetur vel obtinetur euthanasia.

At the root of every act of violence against one’s neighbour there is a concession to the “thinking” of the evil one, the one who “was a murderer from the beginning” (Jn 8:44). As the Apostle John reminds us: “For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another, and not be like Cain who was of the evil one and murdered his brother” (1 Jn 3:11-12). Cain’s killing of his brother at the very dawn of history is thus a sad witness of how evil spreads with amazing speed: man’s revolt against God in the earthly paradise is followed by the deadly combat of man against man.

Cuilibet proximi violationi subest nimirum concessio facta “logicae” maligni, eius scilicet qui “homicida erat ab initio” (Io. 8, 44), uti apostolus commemorat Ioannes: “Quoniam haec est annuntiatio, quam audistis ab initio, ut diligamus alterutrum. Non sicut Cain: ex Maligno erat et occidit fratrem suum” (1 Io. 3, 11-12). Ita profecto fratris occisio a primo iam historiae humanae diluculo triste testimonium est quomodo celeritate mira progrediatur malum: hominis rebellioni in Deum in paradiso terrestri capitalis comitatur hominis contra hominem dimicatio.

After the crime, God intervenes to avenge the one killed. Before God, who asks him about the fate of Abel, Cain, instead of showing remorse and apologizing, arrogantly eludes the question: “I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen 4:9). “I do not know”: Cain tries to cover up his crime with a lie. This was and still is the case, when all kinds of ideologies try to justify and disguise the most atrocious crimes against human beings. “Am I my brother’s keeper?”: Cain does not wish to think about his brother and refuses to accept the responsibility which every person has towards others. We cannot but think of today’s tendency for people to refuse to accept responsibility for their brothers and sisters. Symptoms of this trend include the lack of solidarity towards society’s weakest members--such as the elderly, the infirm, immigrants, children--and the indifference frequently found in relations between the world’s peoples even when basic values such as survival, freedom and peace are involved.

Post scelus, intercedit Deus ut ulciscatur interfectum. In Dei conspectu, qui de Abelis exitu eum percontatur, Cain, non modo se non anxium et verecundum exhibet veniamque petit, verum arroganter etiam declinat quaesitum: “Nescio. Num custos fratris mei sum ego?” (Gen. 4, 9). “Nescio”: mendacio sic studet Cain suum abscondere flagitium. Saepius quidem ita est factum et fit, cum utiles reperiuntur diversissimae quaeque sententiae rationesve ad purganda ac tegenda contra personam scelera atrocissima. “Num custos fratris mei sum ego?”: nec fratrem cogitare Cain nec complere illud vult officium quo erga proximum quisque obligatur. Animum sua sponte cogitatio subit de hodiernis rerum propensionibus, quibus homo nempe in sui similem amittit omnem officiorum sensum; cuius rei documenta sunt tum deficiens coniunctionis adfectus erga debiliores societatis partes – quales sunt senes et aegrotantes migrantes et infantes – tum mens ipsa indifferens quae in rationibus inter populos crebrius deprehenditur, etiam cum de rebus agitur omnino praecipuis veluti de exsistentia ipsa et libertate et pace.

        9. But God cannot leave the crime unpunished: from the ground on which it has been spilt, the blood of the one murdered demands that God should render justice (cf. Gen 37:26; Is 26:21; Ez 24:7-8). From this text the Church has taken the name of the “sins which cry to God for justice”, and, first among them, she has included wilful murder.[12] For the Jewish people, as for many peoples of antiquity, blood is the source of life. Indeed “the blood is the life” (Dt 12:23), and life, especially human life, belongs only to God: for this reason whoever attacks human life, in some way attacks God himself.

9. At praeterire impune non potest Deus delictum: agro ex ipso, ubi effusus est, postulat interfecti sanguis ut Ille iustitiam reddat (Cfr. ibid. 37, 26; Is. 26, 21; Ez. 24, 7-8). Hoc ex loco collegit Ecclesia illam appellationem “peccatorum quae coram Deo vindictam clamant” quibus ante omnia voluntarium annumeratur homicidium (Cfr. Catechismus Catholicae Ecclesiae, nn. 1867 et 2268). Iudaeis ipsis sicut aliis etiam antiquitatis populis sedes est sanguis vitae, immo vero “sanguis... anima est” (Deut. 12, 23), atque vita, humana praesertim, unum pertinet ad Deum: quocirca qui hominis adgreditur vitam, ipsi quadamtenus Deo infert manus.

Cain is cursed by God and also by the earth, which will deny him its fruit (cf. Gen 4: 12). He is punished: he will live in the wilderness and the desert. Murderous violence profoundly changes man’s environment. From being the “garden of Eden” (Gen 2:15), a place of plenty, of harmonious interpersonal relationships and of friendship with God, the earth becomes “the land of Nod” (Gen 4:16), a place of scarcity, loneliness and separation from God. Cain will be “a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth” (Gen 4:14): uncertainty and restlessness will follow him forever.

A Deo maledicitur Cain atque etiam a terra ipsa, quae ei suos recusabit fructus (Cfr. Gen. 4, 11-12). Porro punitur; vastitatem colet et solitudinem. Vitae hominis ambitum funditus immutat mortifera vis. Tellus, sive “paradisus Eden” (Ibid. 2, 15), abundantiae regio necnon tranquillarum inter personas necessitudinum atque amicitiae cum Deo, evadit “terra Nod” (Ibid. 4, 16), “miseriae” locus ac solitudinis et longinquitatis a Deo. Erit Cain “vagus et profugus super terram” (Ibid. 4, 14): incerta instabilisque illum semper comitabitur condicio.

And yet God, who is always merciful even when he punishes, “put a mark on Cain, lest any who came upon him should kill him” (Gen 4:15). He thus gave him a distinctive sign, not to condemn him to the hatred of others, but to protect and defend him from those wishing to kill him, even out of a desire to avenge Abel’s death. Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this. And it is precisely here that the paradoxical mystery of the merciful justice of God is shown forth. As Saint Ambrose writes: “Once the crime is admitted at the very inception of this sinful act of parricide, then the divine law of God’s mercy should be immediately extended. If punishment is forthwith inflicted on the accused, then men in the exercise of justice would in no way observe patience and moderation, but would straightaway condemn the defendant to punishment.... God drove Cain out of his presence and sent him into exile far away from his native land, so that he passed from a life of human kindness to one which was more akin to the rude existence of a wild beast. God, who preferred the correction rather than the death of a sinner, did not desire that a homicide be punished by the exaction of another act of homicide”.[13]

Misericors tamen usque Deus, etiam puniens, “posuit... Cain signum, ut non eum interficeret omnis qui invenisset eum” (Ibid. 4, 15): notam igitur ei addit, non sane eo pertinentem ut ceterorum hominum exsecrationibus obiciatur, sed ut protegatur is defendaturque adversus omnes qui eum interimere fortasse voluerint etiam ut Abelis ulciscantur necem. Sua tamen ne homicida quidem dignitate destituitur cuius rei Deus ipse dat sese vadimonium. Hoc ideo ipso loco admirabile proditur misericordis Dei iustitiae arcanum; quem ad modum narrat sanctus Ambrosius: “Cum parricidium esset admissum, hoc est scelerum principatus, ubi peccatum obrepsit, statim et lex divinae mansuetudinis prorogari debuit; ne si continuo vindicatum esset in reum, homines quoque in vindicando nullam patientiam moderationemque servarent, sed statim reos supplicio darent... Repulit enim eum Deus a facie sua, et a parentibus abdicatum separatae habitationis quodam relegavit exsilio; eo quod ab humana mansuetudine transisset ad saevitiam bestiarum. Verumtamen non homicidio voluit homicidam vindicari, qui mavult peccatoris correctionem, quam mortem” (S. AMBROSII De Cain et Abel, II, 10, 38: CSEL 32, 408).

[10-17] “What have you done?” (Gen 4:10):
THE ECLIPSE of the VALUE of LIFE

“Quid fecisti?” (Gen. 4, 10): obscuratum vitae bonum

        10. The Lord said to Cain: “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground” (Gen 4:10). The voice of the blood shed by men continues to cry out, from generation to generation, in ever new and different ways.

10. Dixit Dominus ad Cain: “Quid fecisti? Vox sanguinis fratris tui clamat ad me de agro” (Ibid.). Sanguinis vox per homines profusi haud desinit clamare in aetates singulas, aliis quidem modis variisque et novis significationibus adhibitis.

The Lord’s question: “What have you done?”, which Cain cannot escape, is addressed also to the people of today, to make them realize the extent and gravity of the attacks against life which continue to mark human history; to make them discover what causes these attacks and feeds them; and to make them ponder seriously the consequences which derive from these attacks for the existence of individuals and peoples.

Posita Cain a Domino interrogatio: “Quid fecisti?”, quam declinare is non valet, ad hominem pariter convertitur nostri temporis, ut amplitudinis conscius sibi fiat gravitatisque illarum vitae violationum, quibus continenter res hominum gestae signantur; ut causas inquirat multiplices unde pariuntur et nutriuntur; ut serio quam maxime animo consectaria perpendat ex hisce adgressionibus profluentia in ipsam personarum populorumque exsistentiam.

Some threats come from nature itself, but they are made worse by the culpable indifference and negligence of those who could in some cases remedy them. Others are the result of situations of violence, hatred and conflicting interests, which lead people to attack others through murder, war, slaughter and genocide.

Ex natura ipsa quaedam pericula cooriuntur, verum culpanda hominum neglegentia et socordia augentur, qui saepius remedium adferre possent; alia contra casuum sunt effecta violentiae et odii et inter se pugnantium studiorum, quibus adducuntur homines ut nece et bello, caede et stirpium occisione alios adoriantur homines.

And how can we fail to consider the violence against life done to millions of human beings, especially children, who are forced into poverty, malnutrition and hunger because of an unjust distribution of resources between peoples and between social classes? And what of the violence inherent not only in wars as such but in the scandalous arms trade, which spawns the many armed conflicts which stain our world with blood? What of the spreading of death caused by reckless tampering with the world’s ecological balance, by the criminal spread of drugs, or by the promotion of certain kinds of sexual activity which, besides being morally unacceptable, also involve grave risks to life? It is impossible to catalogue completely the vast array of threats to human life, so many are the forms, whether explicit or hidden, in which they appear today! 

Quis autem illam non cogitet vim, quae vitae multorum milium millenorum hominum infertur praesertim infantium qui in miseriam rediguntur, ad minutum alimentum famemque ipsam propter opum iniquam inter populos et sociales ordines divisionem? aut violentiam ante bella ipsa in turpi iam insitam armamentorum mercatura, quae augescenti incremento favet armatarum tot dimicationum quibus orbis cruentatur? aut mortis sementem quae inconsiderata fit per aequilibritatis oecologicae turbationem, per criminosam medicamentorum stupefactivorum disseminationem, per propugnatas sexus adhibendi formas quae non solum morali sunt ratione reprobandae, verum tramites etiam agnoscendae gravium vitae periculorum? Plene non licet omnes plurimas recensere vitae humanae minationes, tot namque figuras sive apertas sive opertas illae hoc nostro tempore induunt!

How did Crimes become

Rights ?

    11. Here though we shall concentrate particular attention on another category of attacks, affecting life in its earliest and in its final stages, attacks which present new characteristics with respect to the past and which raise questions of extraordinary seriousness. It is not only that in generalized opinion these attacks tend no longer to be considered as “crimes”; paradoxically they assume the nature of “rights”, to the point that the State is called upon to give them legal recognition and to make them available through the free services of health-care personnel. Such attacks strike human life at the time of its greatest frailty, when it lacks any means of self-defence. Even more serious is the fact that, most often, those attacks are carried out in the very heart of and with the complicity of the family--the family which by its nature is called to be the “sanctuary of life”.

11. At intenditur singillatim nunc mens nostra in aliud genus adgressionum quae vitam tum nascentem tum morientem tangunt, quae novas alias antehac proprietates praebent et quaestiones unicae gravitatis movent: idcirco quod facile paulatim in ipsa societatis conscientia indolem exstinguunt “delicti” atque etiam inopinate in se naturam recipiunt “iuris”, adeo quidem ut poscant denique ut vere ac proprie lege publica agnoscantur deindeque gratuito opere ipsorum valetudinis curatorum compleantur. In adiunctis summe fortuitis, cum omni caret sui defendendi potestate, vitam illae violationes percutiunt. Et gravius adhuc multo illud est quod hae in vitam iniuriae plerumque intra et per illam familiam patrantur quae sua ex natura destinatur ut “vitae sacrarium” exsistat.

[1] In the background there is the profound crisis of culture, which generates scepticism in relation to the very foundations of knowledge and ethics, and which makes it increasingly difficult to grasp clearly the meaning of what man is, the meaning of his rights and his duties.

[2] Then there are all kinds of existential and interpersonal difficulties, made worse by the complexity of a society in which individuals, couples and families are often left alone with their problems.

[3] There are situations of acute poverty, anxiety or frustration in which the struggle to make ends meet, the presence of unbearable pain,

[4] or instances of violence, especially against women, make the choice to defend and promote life so demanding as sometimes to reach the point of heroism.

violationes acceptae, praesertim feminas adficientes, faciunt ut consilia de protegenda ac promovenda vita aliquid flagitent nonnumquam quod virtutem quandam prae se ferat heroicam.

All this explains, at least in part, how the value of life can today undergo a kind of “eclipse”, even though conscience does not cease to point to it as a sacred and inviolable value, as is evident in the tendency to disguise certain crimes against life in its early or final stages by using innocuous medical terms which distract attention from the fact that what is involved is the right to life of an actual human person.   

Partim saltem haec omnia explanant, quo modo vitae hodie aestimatio in se nescio quam “obscurationem” seu eclipsim recipere possit, licet haud desinat conscientia illud vitae bonum tamquam sacrum designare et inviolabile, perinde ac demonstratur eo ipso quod contra orientem vel occidentem vitam scelera quaedam dictionibus medicinam sapientibus contegere conantur, quibus oculi nempe avertantur ab eo quod hic tractatur ius ad exsistentiam alicuius definitae personae humanae.

Structure of Sin: Culture of 

Death

    12. In fact, while the climate of widespread moral uncertainty can in some way be explained by the multiplicity and gravity of today’s social problems, and , it is no less true that we are confronted bthese can sometimes mitigate the subjective responsibility of individualsy an even larger reality, which can be described as a veritable structure of sin. This reality is characterized by the emergence of a culture which denies solidarity and in many cases takes the form of a veritable “culture of death”. This culture is actively fostered by powerful cultural, economic and political currents which encourage an idea of society excessively concerned with efficiency.

12. Re quidem vera, etiamsi plures ipsae graves rationes disputationis hodiernae de socialibus causis quadamtenus explicare valent adfectionem illam late diffusae dubitationis moralis atque interdum etiam singulis in hominibus labefactae cuiusque sensum officiorum propriorum, non minus tamen verum est consistere nos ante negotium multo amplius, quod haberi quidem licet verum propriumque peccati institutum, cuius nempe est culturam quandam iniungere adversus omnem hominum solidarietatem, crebrius congruentem cum germana “mortis cultura”. Sedulo haec promovetur a fautoribus motuum magnorum culturalium oeconomicorum politicorum, qui notionem efferunt societatis ad efficientiam propendentis.

Looking at the situation from this point of view, it is possible to speak in a certain sense of a war of the powerful against the weak: a life which would require greater acceptance, love and care is considered useless, or held to be an intolerable burden, and is therefore rejected in one way or another. A person who, because of illness, handicap or, more simply, just by existing, compromises the well-being or life-style of those who are more favoured tends to be looked upon as an enemy to be resisted or eliminated. In this way a kind of “conspiracy against life” is unleashed. This conspiracy involves not only individuals in their personal, family or group relationships, but goes far beyond, to the point of damaging and distorting, at the international level, relations between peoples and States.    

Hac ideo ratione rebus iudicatis, loqui par est quodam modo de potentium contra imbecillos bello: etenim vita, quae magis poscit ut benevolentia, amore, cura suscipiatur, inutilis prorsus iudicatur aut censetur pondus intolerabile proindeque pluribus viis reicitur. Quicumque suam ob aegrotationem vel impeditionem aut, multo facilius, ob ipsam in terris praesentiam suam vocat in discrimen felicitatem vitaeve consuetudines eorum qui magis prosperantur, fere semper inimicus videtur arcendus aut omnino tollendus. Hinc genus quoddam prorumpit “coniurationis contra vitam”, quae non singulorum tantum hominum implicat necessitudines cum aliis hominibus et familia et coetibus, verum ulterius multo progreditur, ut iam in ordine omnium nationum perturbet coniunctionis rationes inter populos et Status.

   13. In order to facilitate the spread of abortion, enormous sums of money have been invested and continue to be invested in the production of pharmaceutical products which make it possible to kill the fetus in the mother’s womb without recourse to medical assistance. On this point, scientific research itself seems to be almost exclusively preoccupied with developing products which are ever more simple and effective in suppressing life and which at the same time are capable of removing abortion from any kind of control or social responsibility.

13. Quo latius disseminetur abortus, immensae collocatae sunt pecuniae et usque etiam nunc collocantur, ut medicamina comparentur quibus, medicorum quovis neglecto subsidio, materno in utero fetus interfici possit. Qua in rerum provincia, fere id solum studere videtur scientifica inquisitio ut simpliciora usque et efficaciora contra vitam perficiantur instrumenta, eodemque tempore talia quibus cuilibet gubernationis rationi subducatur ipse abortus atque omni sociali obligationi.

It is frequently asserted that contraception, if made safe and available to all, is the most effective remedy against abortion. The Catholic Church is then accused of actually promoting abortion, because she obstinately continues to teach the moral unlawfulness of contraception. When looked at carefully, this objection is clearly unfounded. It may be that many people use contraception with a view to excluding the subsequent temptation of abortion. But the negative values inherent in the “contraceptive mentality”--which is very different from responsible parenthood, lived in respect for the full truth of the conjugal act--are such that they in fact strengthen this temptation when an unwanted life is conceived. Indeed, the pro-abortion culture is especially strong precisely where the Church’s teaching on contraception is rejected. Certainly, from the moral point of view contraception and abortion are specifically different evils: the former contradicts the full truth of the sexual act as the proper expression of conjugal love, while the latter destroys the life of a human being; the former is opposed to the virtue of chastity in marriage, the latter is opposed to the virtue of justice and directly violates the divine commandment “You shall not kill”.

Perhibetur saepe anticonceptio, quae tuta interea evaserit omnibusque pervia, efficientissimum esse contra abortum remedium. Accusatur exinde catholica Ecclesia ipsi favere abortui cum docere obstinata pergat illegitimam anticonceptionis naturam. At bene si introspicitur fallax reapse haec obiectatio ostenditur. Fieri namque potest ut abortus illecebram deinceps fugere cupientes ad haec instrumenta et consilia contra conceptionem quidam se conferant. Verumtamen falsa bonorum iudicia, quae ipsi “menti contra conceptionem” insunt – longe nimirum abhorrenti a responsali paternitatis ac maternitatis exercitatione, quae secundum plenam coniugalis actus veritatem completur – ea quidem sunt quae idem illud invitamentum etiam augeant, si vitae non optatae conceptus intervenerit. Cultura illa socialis, quae abortui favet, ibi insigniter percrebuit ubi Ecclesiae doctrina de anticonceptione repudiatur. Sine dubitatione mala sunt nominatim diversa anticonceptio atque abortus ipsa ratione morali: altera integram actus sexualis veritatem negat veluti amoris coniugalis propriam declarationem, hic alter vero hominis delet vitam; opponitur illa castitatis matrimonialis virtuti, hic iustitiae virtuti obicitur rectaque via divinum transgreditur praeceptum: “Non occides”.

Still, in very many other instances such practices are rooted in a hedonistic mentality unwilling to accept responsibility in matters of sexuality, and they imply a self-centered concept of freedom, which regards procreation as an obstacle to personal fulfilment. The life which could result from a sexual encounter thus becomes an enemy to be avoided at all costs, and abortion becomes the only possible decisive response to failed contraception.

Plurimi tamen alii oriuntur casus, ubi consuetudines illae radicitus inhaerent alicui mentis adfectui, qui ad voluptatem propendet atque officia singulorum tollit de rebus sexus, et egoisticam praeponunt libertatis aestimationem, quae in vitae procreatione impedimentum aliquod cernit ne suum quis ingenium plene explicet. Vita ergo quae ex sexuum coitu profluere posset ita inimica evadit omnino declinanda et unica fit abortus responsio quae potest reddi atque dissolvere difficultatem, si quando conata contra conceptionem sine effectu defecerunt.

The close connection which exists, in mentality, between the practice of contraception and that of abortion is becoming increasingly obvious. It is being demonstrated in an alarming way by the development of chemical products, intrauterine devices and vaccines which, distributed with the same ease as contraceptives, really act as abortifacients in the very early stages of the development of the life of the new human being.

Pro dolor, nexus proximus ille, qui in mente saltem hominum inter anticonceptionis usum intercedit et abortum, magis quidem eminet magisque in dies, terrifico quodam modo comprobat ipsam per confectionem chimicarum tractationum et instrumentorum intrauterinorum et iniectionum intercutium, quae, tam facile distributae quam ipsa contra conceptionem instrumenta, idem prorsus reapse primis in stadiis crescentis vitae novi hominis efficiunt ac rationes abortivae.

Moral Dangers of Artificial  

Reproduction

   14. The various techniques of artificial reproduction, which would seem to be at the service of life and which are frequently used with this intention, actually open the door to new threats against life. Apart from the fact that they are morally unacceptable, since they separate procreation from the fully human context of the conjugal act,[14] these techniques have a high rate of failure: not just failure in relation to fertilization but with regard to the subsequent development of the embryo, which is exposed to the risk of death, generally within a very short space of time. Furthermore, the number of embryos produced is often greater than that needed for implantation in the woman’s womb, and these so-called “spare embryos” are then destroyed or used for research which, under the pretext of scientific or medical progress, in fact reduces human life to the level of simple “biological material” to be freely disposed of.

14. Diversi similiter modi generationis artificiosae, qui ministerio vitae servire videntur quique crebrius hac ex mente adhibentur, viam revera ad novas vitae violationes sternunt. Praeterquam quod accipi ob morales causas non possunt, etiam quia procreationem ipsam ab humana prorsus coniugalis actus complexione segregant (Cfr. CONGR. PRO DOCTRINA FIDEI Donum Vitae), rationes istae technicae magnam prae se ferunt nullius successus crebritatem: respicit ille defectus non tam seminationem verum subsequens germinis incrementum, quod tempore plerumque brevissimo ipsi obicitur mortis periculo. Praeterea gignuntur interdum plura germina quae necesse est ut in feminae inserantur uterum, haecque sic dicta “supernumeraria germina” exstinguuntur deinde vel ad investigationes usurpantur quae, sub medicae scientificaeve progressionis obtentu, redigunt vere vitam humanam in simplicem “biologicam materiam” de qua libere decernere licet.

Prenatal diagnosis, which presents no moral objections if carried out in order to identify the medical treatment which may be needed by the child in the womb, all too often becomes an opportunity for proposing and procuring an abortion. This is eugenic abortion, justified in public opinion on the basis of a mentality--mistakenly held to be consistent with the demands of “therapeutic interventions”--which accepts life only under certain conditions and rejects it when it is affected by any limitation, handicap or illness.

Inquisitiones porro praenatales, quibuscum morales non coniunguntur difficultates si idcirco peraguntur ut necessariae nondum infantibus natis curationes forte parentur, nimium quidem saepe opportunitates fiunt ipsius suadendi perficiendique abortus. De abortu nempe agitur eugenetico, cuius apud plebem provenit defensio quadam ex sententia, quae perperam cohaerere existimatur cum “sanationis” postulatis, quaeque certis dumtaxat condicionibus vitam complectitur atque reicit limites impeditiones debilitates.

Following this same logic, the point has been reached where the most basic care, even nourishment, is denied to babies born with serious handicaps or illnesses. The contemporary scene, moreover, is becoming even more alarming by reason of the proposals, advanced here and there, to justify even infanticide, following the same arguments used to justify the right to abortion. In this way, we revert to a state of barbarism which one hoped had been left behind forever.      

Secundum idem autem hoc iudicium eo usque quidam processerunt ut communissimas humillimasque curas, quin immo etiam escas, infantibus negaverint enatis gravi aliquo cum impedimento morbove. Prospectus insuper nostri temporis magis etiam animum perturbat, quandoquidem passim est suasum ut cum abortus iure una simul legitimum reddatur ipsum infanticidium, atque sic ad barbariam fit reditus quam confidebant homines iam in sempiternum esse devictam.

        15. Threats which are no less serious hang over the incurably ill and the dying. In a social and cultural context which makes it more difficult to face and accept suffering, the temptation becomes all the greater to resolve the problem of suffering by eliminating it at the root, by hastening death so that it occurs at the moment considered most suitable.

15. Haud vero minores intenduntur minationes pariter in aegrotantes insanabiles atque morientes, in socialibus et culturalibus rerum adiunctis quae, dum efficiunt ut accipiatur difficilius et perferatur dolor, vehementius quidem homines illiciunt ut totum dissolvant dolendi negotium radicitus evellendo dolore, morte videlicet praecipienda commodissimo quolibet tempore.

Various considerations usually contribute to such a decision, all of which converge in the same terrible outcome. In the sick person the sense of anguish, of severe discomfort, and even of desperation brought on by intense and prolonged suffering can be a decisive factor. Such a situation can threaten the already fragile equilibrium of an individual’s personal and family life, with the result that, on the one hand, the sick person, despite the help of increasingly effective medical and social assistance, risks feeling overwhelmed by his or her own frailty; and on the other hand, those close to the sick person can be moved by an understandable even if misplaced compassion. All this is aggravated by a cultural climate which fails to perceive any meaning or value in suffering, but rather considers suffering the epitome of evil, to be eliminated at all costs. This is especially the case in the absence of a religious outlook which could help to provide a positive understanding of the mystery of suffering.

Id vero ad decernendum variae saepe concurrunt causae, quae infeliciter omnes ad terrificum hunc conspirant eventum. In aegrotante plurimum valere potest sensus ipse anxietatis et acerbitatis, immo etiam desperationis, quem aliquis acrem diuturnumque expertus dolorem percipit. Porro pertemptatur aequabilitas nonnumquam iam incerta vitae privatae ac familiaris, ut hinc aegrotus, etsi efficacioribus usque subsidiis providentiae medicae et socialis sustentatus, periculo obiciatur ne opprimi sese sua fragilitate sentiat; illinc vero in iis qui adfectu quodam inter se iunguntur valere possit pietatis sensus qui facile intellegitur quamvis perperam comprehendatur. Quodam praeterea morum habitu haec omnia exacerbantur, qui nullam in dolore significationem aut virtutem detegit, quin immo ut malum praecipuum censet quovis pretio propulsandum; quod tum maxime accidit cum religiosa desideratur rerum aestimatio qua iuvetur quis ut in bonam partem doloris arcanum interpretetur.

On a more general level, there exists in contemporary culture a certain Promethean attitude which leads people to think that they can control life and death by taking the decisions about them into their own hands. What really happens in this case is that the individual is overcome and crushed by a death deprived of any prospect of meaning or hope. We see a tragic expression of all this in the spread of euthanasia--disguised and surreptitious, or practised openly and even legally. As well as for reasons of a misguided pity at the sight of the patient’s suffering, euthanasia is sometimes justified by the utilitarian motive of avoiding costs which bring no return and which weigh heavily on society. Thus it is proposed to eliminate malformed babies, the severely handicapped, the disabled, the elderly, especially when they are not self-sufficient, and the terminally ill. Nor can we remain silent in the face of other more furtive, but no less serious and real, forms of euthanasia. These could occur for example when, in order to increase the availability of organs for transplants, organs are removed without respecting objective and adequate criteria which verify the death of the donor. 

Attamen in toto cultus humani prospectu aliquid certe efficit ratio quaedam Promethei animi super homine qui sibi persuadet posse sic sese vita morteque potiri, cum de illis decernat, dum revera devincitur ac deprimitur interitu irreparabiliter clauso ante omnem sentiendi exspectationem omnemque spem. Calamitosam horum sensuum omnium testificationem in late prolata deprehendimus euthanasia, tecta quidem et prorepente aut quae palam peragitur vel iure etiam ipso permittitur. Haec vero, praeter quam ex adserta quadam misericordia de dolore alicuius patientis hominis, defenditur interdum ex certae utilitatis aestimatione, ob quam nempe nimia pro societate impendia infructuosa declinari debeant. Itaque suadetur ut nati deformes, graviter praepediti et invalidi, senes potissimum sibi providere non valentes, necnon insanabiliter aegrotantes tollantur. Neque silere hoc loco nos par est aliis de tectioribus, nihilo tamen minus veris et gravibus, euthanasiae modis. Accidere illi possunt cum, verbi gratia, ad organorum copiam transplantandorum augendam, ipsa auferuntur organa minime quidem normis obiectivis congruisque servatis de certa donatoris morte.

        16. Another present-day phenomenon, frequently used to justify threats and attacks against life, is the demographic question. This question arises in different ways in different parts of the world. In the rich and developed countries there is a disturbing decline or collapse of the birthrate. The poorer countries, on the other hand, generally have a high rate of population growth, difficult to sustain in the context of low economic and social development, and especially where there is extreme underdevelopment. In the face of overpopulation in the poorer countries, instead of forms of global intervention at the international level--serious family and social policies, programmes of cultural development and of fair production and distribution of resources--anti-birth policies continue to be enacted.

16. Porro alia huius aetatis res, quae minas secum adgressionesque importat vitae, est ipsa demographica quaestio. Aliis profecto in orbis regionibus aliter ea ostenditur: divites enim progressasque apud Nationes imminutio terrifica vel prolapsio animadvertitur nascentium; exhibent plerumque ex contrario pauperiores Civitates augescentem usque quotam partem incolarum exorientium, quam aegre ferant condiciones minoris quidem oeconomici et socialis progressus vel etiam magnopere tardati incrementi. Nimium multiplicatis Nationum egentium civibus desunt, universim per orbem, consilia et incepta communia – seriae familiares et sociales propositiones ad culturae ipsius auctum, ad aequam opum effectionem partitionemque – dum contra in actum deduci pergunt politica adversus nascentes decreta.

Contraception, sterilization and abortion are certainly part of the reason why in some cases there is a sharp decline in the birthrate. It is not difficult to be tempted to use the same methods and attacks against life also where there is a situation of “demographic explosion”.

Anticonceptio, sterilizatio et abortus numerentur certissime oportet inter causas adiuvantes ut status exsistant magni natorum decrementi. Facile quis induci potest ut ad easdem confugiat rationes vitaeque violationes etiam in “demographicae explosionis” casibus.

The Pharaoh of old, haunted by the presence and increase of the children of Israel, submitted them to every kind of oppression and ordered that every male child born of the Hebrew women was to be killed (cf. Ex 1:7-22). Today not a few of the powerful of the earth act in the same way. They too are haunted by the current demographic growth, and fear that the most prolific and poorest peoples represent a threat for the well-being and peace of their own countries. Consequently, rather than wishing to face and solve these serious problems with respect for the dignity of individuals and families and for every person’s inviolable right to life, they prefer to promote and impose by whatever means a massive programme of birth control. Even the economic help which they would be ready to give is unjustly made conditional on the acceptance of an anti-birth policy.     

Antiquus ille pharao, cum perciperet praesentiam et crescentem filiorum Israelis frequentiam adferre quendam terrorem, omnibus modis oppressit illos praecepitque ut mas omnis modo natus e mulieribus Hebraeis exstingueretur (Cfr. Ex. 1, 7-22). Eodem prorsus pacto plures sese gerunt hodie Nationum principes. Ii animadvertunt quoque veluti suppressionem nocturnam augmentum terrae incolarum, quod hodie accidit, ac metuunt propterea ne fertiliores ac pauperiores gentes ipsi prosperitati minentur et serenitati suorum populorum. Qua de causa malunt ipsi qualibet ratione provehere et iniungere vastissimam natorum moderationem quam suscipere atque dissolvere gravissimas has quaestiones, observata personae humanae familiarumque dignitate et inviolabili custodito ipso vitae iure in unoquoque homine. Subsidia quoque nummaria, quae parati esse dicuntur ad elargienda, inique regunt e praevio consensu in actionem contra natorum incrementum.

        17. Humanity today offers us a truly alarming spectacle, if we consider not only how extensively attacks on life are spreading but also their unheard-of numerical proportion, and the fact that they receive widespread and powerful support from a broad consensus on the part of society, from widespread legal approval and the involvement of certain sectors of health-care personnel.

17. Spectaculum hoc tempore nobis praebent homines quod animum conterreat, si non rerum adiuncta tantum varia inspiciuntur, ubi vitam adgredi moliuntur, sed ipse adgressionum earundem pro portione numerus, atque etiam multiplicia illa ac valida praesidia, quae iis adiungunt latus societatis consensus, frequens iuris permissus et ipse administrorum valetudinis concursus.

As I emphatically stated at Denver, on the occasion of the Eighth World Youth Day, “with time the threats against life have not grown weaker. They are taking on vast proportions. They are not only threats coming from the outside, from the forces of nature or the ‘Cains’ who kill the ‘Abels’; no, they are scientifically and systematically programmed threats. The twentieth century will have been an era of massive attacks on life, an endless series of wars and a continual taking of innocent human life. False prophets and false teachers have had the greatest success”.[15] Aside from intentions, which can be varied and perhaps can seem convincing at times, especially if presented in the name of solidarity, we are in fact faced by an objective “conspiracy against life”, involving even international Institutions, engaged in encouraging and carrying out actual campaigns to make contraception, sterilization and abortion widely available. Nor can it be denied that the mass media are often implicated in this conspiracy, by lending credit to that culture which presents recourse to contraception, sterilization, abortion and even euthanasia as a mark of progress and a victory of freedom, while depicting as enemies of freedom and progress those positions which are unreservedly pro-life.

Quem ad modum vehementer Denverii ediximus ad octavum Diem Mundialem Iuventutis, “non decrescunt progrediente tempore pericula in vitam intentata. Sed immensam contra sibi adsumunt amplitudinem. Neque de minis agitur extrinsecus imminentibus, ex naturae viribus vel a fratribus «Cain» qui fratres interimunt «Abel»; nullo modo: sermo potius est de violationibus scientifice ordinateque dispositis. Iudicabitur vicesimum hoc saeculum ut aetas ingentium invasionum in vitam, ut interminata bellorum catena perpetuaeque innocentium vitarum humanarum caedis. Vates falsi et falsi praeceptores quam maximum consecuti sunt rerum successum” Praeter omnia illa proposita, quae multiplicia esse possunt ac fortasse etiam vim prae se ferre persuadendi sub solidarietatis titulo, consistimus reapse ante apertam “coniurationem in vitam”, ubi institutiones pariter omnium gentium implicari videntur, quae ex officio incitant et ordinant veros hominum motus ad anticonceptionem et sterilizationem et abortum dispergenda. Haud denique negari licet instrumenta socialis communicationis saepius huic adstipulari coniurationi, cum publicam apud opinionem illi menti fidem faciunt ac rationi, qua anticonceptionis sterilizationis abortus ipsiusque euthanasiae usus ostentatur perinde ac progressionis adeptaeque libertatis documentum, dum contrariae opiniones sine condicione ipsi faventes vitae tamquam libertatis progressionisque finguntur inimicae.

[18-20] “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen 4:9):
A PERVERSE IDEA of FREEDOM

“Num custos fratris mei sum ego?” (Gen. 4, 9): improbabilis libertatis notio

        18. The panorama described needs to be understood not only in terms of the phenomena of death which characterize it but also in the variety of causes which determine it. The Lord’s question: “What have you done?” (Gen 4:10), seems almost like an invitation addressed to Cain to go beyond the material dimension of his murderous gesture, in order to recognize in it all the gravity of the motives which occasioned it and the consequences which result from it.

18. Rerum hic prospectus ut cognoscatur poscit non dumtaxat in mortis phaenomenis suis peculiaribus, verum et in multiplicibus causis, quae eum efficiunt. Domini interrogatio: “Quid fecisti?” (Gen. 4, 10) Cain invitare videtur ut rem ipsam et facinus necis praetergrediatur atque illius percipiat gravitatem in rationibus, quae inibi subsunt, et in consecutionibus, quae inde oriuntur.

Decisions that go against life sometimes arise from difficult or even tragic situations of profound suffering, loneliness, a total lack of economic prospects, depression and anxiety about the future. Such circumstances can mitigate even to a notable degree subjective responsibility and the consequent culpability of those who make these choices which in themselves are evil. But today the problem goes far beyond the necessary recognition of these personal situations. It is a problem which exists at the cultural, social and political level, where it reveals its more sinister and disturbing aspect in the tendency, ever more widely shared, to interpret the above crimes against life as legitimate expressions of individual freedom, to be acknowledged and protected as actual rights.

Optiones adversum vitam nonnumquam oriuntur difficilibus ex condicionibus vel quidem gravissimis, ubi videlicet ingens est dolor, solitudo, nulla prorsus rei familiaris suppeditationis spes, animus fractus et futuro de tempore angor. Condiciones eiusmodi possunt etiam valde extenuare subiectivam responsalitatem et congruenter ipsam conscientiam illorum qui has inducunt electiones per se flagitiosas. Hodie tamen talis quaestio longe praetergreditur personales condiciones, agnoscendas sane. Quae quaestio in ambitu cultus, societatis et rei politicae etiam locatur, ubi quidem seditiosiorem et turbulentiorem prae se fert speciem, cum eo tendatur, et iam vulgo magis ac magis spectetur, ut adversum vitam memorata facinora legitima habeantur libertatis singulorum documenta, quae veluti persincera iura sint agnoscenda ac tuenda.

In this way, and with tragic consequences, a long historical process is reaching a turning-point. The process which once led to discovering the idea of “human rights”-- rights inherent in every person and prior to any Constitution and State legislation--is today marked by a surprising contradiction. Precisely in an age when the inviolable rights of the person are solemnly proclaimed and the value of life is publicly affirmed, the very right to life is being denied or trampled upon, especially at the more significant moments of existence: the moment of birth and the moment of death.

Hoc modo ad quoddam pervenit discrimen, ex quo calamitates et pernicies consequuntur, longus historicus processus, qui, postquam “humana iura” detegit – quae sunt cunctarum personarum propria atque omnes Constitutiones Civitatumque leges praecedentia – hodiernis temporibus in admirabilem quandam repugnantiam labitur: tempore ipso, quo sollemniter personae iura sancta edicuntur et vitae praestantia publice affirmatur, ad vitam ipsum ius re negatur et proculcatur, nominatim in vitae momentis praestantioribus, qualia sunt ortus atque obitus.

On the one hand, the various declarations of human rights and the many initiatives inspired by these declarations show that at the global level there is a growing moral sensitivity, more alert to acknowledging the value and dignity of every individual as a human being, without any distinction of race, nationality, religion, political opinion or social class.

Hinc, hominum iura universaliter multifariam enuntiata atque multiplicia incepta quae inde oriuntur, significant per totum terrarum orbem moralem sensum confirmari, ad diligentiorem vim dignitatemque tribuendam singulis hominibus, prout sunt homines, dempto discrimine generis, nationis, religionis, politicarum opinationum, socialis ordinis.

On the other hand, these noble proclamations are unfortunately contradicted by a tragic repudiation of them in practice. This denial is still more distressing, indeed more scandalous, precisely because it is occurring in a society which makes the affirmation and protection of human rights its primary objective and its boast. How can these repeated affirmations of principle be reconciled with the continual increase and widespread justification of attacks on human life? How can we reconcile these declarations with the refusal to accept those who are weak and needy, or elderly, or those who have just been conceived? These attacks go directly against respect for life and they represent a direct threat to the entire culture of human rights. It is a threat capable, in the end, of jeopardizing the very meaning of democratic coexistence: rather than societies of “people living together”, our cities risk becoming societies of people who are rejected, marginalized, uprooted and oppressed. If we then look at the wider worldwide perspective, how can we fail to think that the very affirmation of the rights of individuals and peoples made in distinguished international assemblies is a merely futile exercise of rhetoric, if we fail to unmask the selfishness of the rich countries which exclude poorer countries from access to development or make such access dependent on arbitrary prohibitions against procreation, setting up an opposition between development and man himself? Should we not question the very economic models often adopted by States which, also as a result of international pressures and forms of conditioning, cause and aggravate situations of injustice and violence in which the life of whole peoples is degraded and trampled upon?       

Illinc nobilibus his effatis infeliciter opponitur re miseranda ipsorum negatio. Quae quidem vel conturbantior est, immo flagitiosior, cum usu veniat in societate quadam, in qua humana iura confirmantur et custodiuntur, utpote cum eorum maximum sit propositum et gloriatio. Quomodo iteratae de principiis hae sententiae componi possunt cum vitae humanae insidiis usque multiplicatis et vulgo comprobatis? Quomodo hae declarationes conciliantur cum denegatione debiliorum, indigentiorum, senum, recens conceptorum? Hi conatus vitae tuendae sunt prorsus contrarii, atque simul minarum instar sunt adversum iurium humanorum omnem cultum. Minationes profecto sunt quaedam, quae tandem ipsum democratici convictus sensum labefactare possunt: ex “convictorum” societatibus, urbes nostrae societates evadere possunt exclusorum, derelictorum, depulsorum, interemptorum. Si autem in mundum universum oculos convertimus, quidni cogitemus personarum populorumque iura constituta, quemadmodum praecipuis in internationalibus congressionibus accidit, in vacuam oratoriam exercitationem redigi, nisi divitum Nationum caecus amor obtegatur, quae Nationes pauperes a progressu arcent, vel progressum cum generatione absurde vetanda copulant, homini progressionem opponentes? Nonne fortassis in quaestionem adduci debent ipsa quoque exemplaria oeconomica, quae saepe a Civitatibus recipiuntur etiam ob impulsiones et condiciones totum orbem adficientes, quae pariunt nutriuntque casus iniustitiae et status violentiae, ubi quarundam integrarum multitudinum vita humana deicitur et opprimitur?

Causes of  

Contradiction

   19. What are the roots of this remarkable contradiction?

19. Ubinam harum rerum admodum pugnantium inveniuntur radices?

We can find them in an overall assessment of a cultural and moral nature, beginning with the mentality which carries the concept of subjectivity to an extreme and even distorts it, and recognizes as a subject of rights only the person who enjoys full or at least incipient autonomy and who emerges from a state of total dependence on others. But how can we reconcile this approach with the exaltation of man as a being who is “not to be used”? The theory of human rights is based precisely on the affirmation that the human person, unlike animals and things, cannot be subjected to domination by others. We must also mention the mentality which tends to equate personal dignity with the capacity for verbal and explicit, or at least perceptible, communication. It is clear that on the basis of these presuppositions there is no place in the world for anyone who, like the unborn or the dying, is a weak element in the social structure, or for anyone who appears completely at the mercy of others and radically dependent on them, and can only communicate through the silent language of a profound sharing of affection. In this case it is force which becomes the criterion for choice and action in interpersonal relations and in social life. But this is the exact opposite of what a State ruled by law, as a community in which the “reasons of force” are replaced by the “force of reason”, historically intended to affirm.

Ipsae autem in conclusis culturalis moralisque ordinis aestimationibus inveniri possunt, initio ab illa mente sumpto, quae subiectivitatis nimium extollens notionem et vel depravans, participem iurium solummodo agnoscit, qui incohata plenave quadam autonomia se ostendit seque ab omni aliorum dicione subducit. At quomodo cum hac re hominis exaltatio tamquam entis “nulli obnoxii” componi potest? Humanorum iurium doctrina in eo ipso fundatur, quod homo, secus ac animalibus rebusque evenit, nemini mancipari potest. Mens illa quoque est in transitu significanda, quae personalem dignitatem aequare conatur cum facultate communicationis verbalis claraeque, utique comprobatae et perceptae. Plane liquet, rebus sic stantibus, nihil inesse in orbe terrarum loci, illi qui, ut nascituro vel morituro, constitutive debilis est natura, quique totus aliis personis obnoxius videtur atque ex iis stirpitus pendet et per mutam dumtaxat magnae reciprocationis affectuum loquelam communicare valet. Quapropter vis est, quae fit ratio decernendi agendique inter personarum necessitudines et socialem convictum. At istud plane ei obstat quod historice Status iuris edicere voluit, communitatis videlicet instar in qua “vis rationes” substituuntur “rationis vi”.

At another level, the roots of the contradiction between the solemn affirmation of human rights and their tragic denial in practice lies in a notion of freedom which exalts the isolated individual in an absolute way, and gives no place to solidarity, to openness to others and service of them. While it is true that the taking of life not yet born or in its final stages is sometimes marked by a mistaken sense of altruism and human compassion, it cannot be denied that such a culture of death, taken as a whole, betrays a completely individualistic concept of freedom, which ends up by becoming the freedom of “the strong” against the weak who have no choice but to submit.

Alio in ordine, contrariorum radices, quae inter hominum iura sollemniter constituta intercidunt et calamitosam eorum re destitutionem, libertatis quadam notione nituntur quae absolute individuum extollit atque ad proximum iuvandum pleneque accipiendum eique inserviendum minime ordinat. Si quidem verum est orientis vitae finientisve oppressionem colore nonnumquam infici aliquo iniqui amoris alterius vel humanae pietatis, tamen negari non potest hanc culturam mortis, in universum, libertatis doctrinam quandam demonstrare prorsus individualisticam, quae evasura est in libertatem “fortiorum”, contra debiles qui ad interitum destinantur.

It is precisely in this sense that Cain’s answer to the Lord’s question: “Where is Abel your brother?” can be interpreted: “I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen 4:9). Yes, every man is his “brother’s keeper”, because God entrusts us to one another. And it is also in view of this entrusting that God gives everyone freedom, a freedom which possesses an inherently relational dimension. This is a great gift of the Creator, placed as it is at the service of the person and of his fulfilment through the gift of self and openness to others; but when freedom is made absolute in an individualistic way, it is emptied of its original content, and its very meaning and dignity are contradicted.

Hoc ipso sensu Cain responsum solvi potest, qui Domino interroganti “Ubi est Abel frater tuus?”: “Nescio. Num custos fratris mei sum ego?” (Gen. 4, 9). Ita quidem, omnis homo “custos fratris sui” est, cum Deus homini hominem committat. Et hac quoque pro demandatione Deus cunctis hominibus dat libertatem, quae essentialem necessitudinis rationem secum fert. Magnum est ipsa Creatoris donum, in servitio locata personae eiusque perfectionis per sui ipsius donationem et alterius acceptionem; cum autem veluti absolutum quiddam sumitur cuiusque singillatim hominis, tum libertas exinanitur primigenia significatione eiusque vocatione dignitateque impugnatur.

There is an even more profound aspect which needs to be emphasized: freedom negates and destroys itself, and becomes a factor leading to the destruction of others, when it no longer recognizes and respects its essential link with the truth. When freedom, out of a desire to emancipate itself from all forms of tradition and authority, shuts out even the most obvious evidence of an objective and universal truth, which is the foundation of personal and social life, then the person ends up by no longer taking as the sole and indisputable point of reference for his own choices the truth about good and evil, but only his subjective and changeable opinion or, indeed, his selfish interest and whim.      

Pars quaedam etiam praestantior manet aestimanda: libertas se ipsa pernegat, se ipsa delet, se ipsa ad alium interimendum comparat, cum non agnoscit neque constitutivum veritatis vinculum servat. Quotiescumque a quavis traditione auctoritateque eximere se cupiens libertas ante vel primaria se claudit indicia obiectivae et communis veritatis quae personalis socialisque vitae est fundamentum, sequitur ut persona veluti unum et indubitabile iudicium in rebus eligendis iam non veritatem de bono maloque capiat, sed suam subiectivam mutabilemque opinationem, vel etiam suum ipsius commodum et libidinem suam.

        20. This view of freedom leads to a serious distortion of life in society. If the promotion of the self is understood in terms of absolute autonomy, people inevitably reach the point of rejecting one another. Everyone else is considered an enemy from whom one has to defend oneself. Thus society becomes a mass of individuals placed side by side, but without any mutual bonds. Each one wishes to assert himself independently of the other and in fact intends to make his own interests prevail. Still, in the face of other people’s analogous interests, some kind of compromise must be found, if one wants a society in which the maximum possible freedom is guaranteed to each individual. In this way, any reference to common values and to a truth absolutely binding on everyone is lost, and social life ventures on to the shifting sands of complete relativism. At that point, everything is negotiable, everything is open to bargaining: even the first of the fundamental rights, the right to life.

20. Hac in libertatis notione, socialis convictus funditus detorquetur. Si provectio sui ipsius autonomiae absolutae ambitu terminatur, necessario alter negatur, tamquam inimicus arcendus habitus. Hoc modo societas individuorum coacervatio quaedam fit, qui alius prope alium seiunctim ponuntur, mutuo dempto vinculo: unusquisque ab alio dissidens se vult extollere, immo sua commoda ut praepolleant cupit. Attamen pro alterius similibus commodis medium quiddam est aliquo modo inveniendum, si desideratur ut in societate quam summa libertas unicuique praestetur. Non amplius sic habetur bonorum communium ratio absolutaeque veritatis pro omnibus: socialis vita absoluti relativismi in cedenti sabulo inambulare audet. Tunc omnia sunt conventionalia, omnia venalia: primum quoque capitalium iurium, ius videlicet vitae.

This is what is happening also at the level of politics and government: the original and inalienable right to life is questioned or denied on the basis of a parliamentary vote or the will of one part of the people--even if it is the majority. This is the sinister result of a relativism which reigns unopposed: the “right” ceases to be such, because it is no longer firmly founded on the inviolable dignity of the person, but is made subject to the will of the stronger part. In this way democracy, contradicting its own principles, effectively moves towards a form of totalitarianism. The State is no longer the “common home” where all can live together on the basis of principles of fundamental equality, but is transformed into a tyrant State, which arrogates to itself the right to dispose of the life of the weakest and most defenceless members, from the unborn child to the elderly, in the name of a public interest which is really nothing but the interest of one part.

Hoc ipsum re accidit etiam in ambitu qui propius respublicas et civitates complectitur: primigenium atque non alienabile vitae ius agitatur vel negatur per contionis suffragia perque voluntatem partis populi, licet maioris partis. Exitiabilis est exitus relativismi cuiusdam, qui aperte dominatur: “ius” desinit esse tale, quandoquidem in dignitate personae inviolabili iam non solide fundatur, sed valentioris voluntati subicitur. Hoc modo populare regimen, praeter suas regulas, substantialis totalitarismi curriculum decurrit. Civitas non est amplius “domus communis”, ubi omnibus substantiali quadam cum aequalitate exigere vitam licet, sed tyrannica Civitas fit, quae debiliorum inermiorumque vitam temperare audet, ab infante adhuc non nato ad senem, alicuius publicae utilitatis nomine, quae quidem nihil est aliud nisi nonnullorum commodum.

The appearance of the strictest respect for legality is maintained, at least when the laws permitting abortion and euthanasia are the result of a ballot in accordance with what are generally seen as the rules of democracy. Really, what we have here is only the tragic caricature of legality; the democratic ideal, which is only truly such when it acknowledges and safeguards the dignity of every human person, is betrayed in its very foundations: “How is it still possible to speak of the dignity of every human person when the killing of the weakest and most innocent is permitted? In the name of what justice is the most unjust of discriminations practised: some individuals are held to be deserving of defence and others are denied that dignity?”[16] When this happens, the process leading to the breakdown of a genuinely human co-existence and the disintegration of the State itself has already begun.

Omnia evenire iure omnino servato videtur, saltem cum leges quae patiuntur abortum vel euthanasiam democratica ratione decernuntur. Reapse tantum funesta legis species ob oculos versatur, et optimus ordo democraticus, qui profecto is est cum singularum personarum dignitatem agnoscit et tutatur, suis in ipsis capitibus proditur: “Quomodo fieri potest, ut cuiusque personae dignitas adhuc tractetur, cum debilior persona sinitur occidi et innoxior? Cuius iustitiae nomine inter personas maximum fit discrimen, cum earum aliae dignae existimentur quae defendantur, aliae contra quae hac dignitate exuantur?” Cum hae insunt condiciones, vires iam illae inducuntur quae ad verum humanum convictum disiciendum compellunt aeque ac ad civilem conciliationem dissipandam.

To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom: “Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin” (Jn 8:34).

Abortus, infanticidii, euthanasiae ius assumere, idque ex lege agnoscere, idem est ac libertati humanae perversam iniquamque significationem tribuere: scilicet absolutam potestatem supra alios et contra alios. At haec germanae libertatis est mors: “Amen, amen dico vobis: Omnis, qui facit peccatum, servus est” (Io. 8, 34).

[21-24] “And from your face I shall be hidden” (Gen 4:14):
THE ECLIPSE of the SENSE of GOD and of MAN

“A facie tua abscondar” (Gen. 4, 14): Dei sensus hominisque obscuratio

        21. In seeking the deepest roots of the struggle between the “culture of life” and the “culture of death”, we cannot restrict ourselves to the perverse idea of freedom mentioned above. We have to go to the heart of the tragedy being experienced by modern man: the eclipse of the sense of God and of man, typical of a social and cultural climate dominated by secularism, which, with its ubiquitous tentacles, succeeds at times in putting Christian communities themselves to the test. Those who allow themselves to be influenced by this climate easily fall into a sad vicious circle: when the sense of God is lost, there is also a tendency to lose the sense of man, of his dignity and his life; in turn, the systematic violation of the moral law, especially in the serious matter of respect for human life and its dignity, produces a kind of progressive darkening of the capacity to discern God’s living and saving presence.

21. In altioribus radicibus perquirendis certaminis inter “culturam vitae” et “mortis culturam”, consistere non possumus coram perversae libertatis opinione, quam supra memoravimus. Ipsum cardinem attingere debemus illius dirae vicis, quam nostrae aetatis homo experitur: Dei sensus hominisque obscurationem, quiddam scilicet proprium socialis culturalisque mentis, quae saecularismo imbuitur, qui suis invadentibus flexuris ipsas christianas communitates temptare non desistit. Qui hac rerum condicione afficitur, vitiosi illius circuitus turbine facile capitur: cum quis Dei sensum amittit, amissurus est quoque sensum hominis, eius dignitatis eiusque vitae; continuata autem moralis legis violatio potissimum in gravi re vitae observandae eiusque dignitatis, efficit ut gradatim obscuretur facultas percipiendi vivificantem salutiferamque Dei praesentiam.

Once again we can gain insight from the story of Abel’s murder by his brother. After the curse imposed on him by God, Cain thus addresses the Lord: “My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, you have driven me this day away from the ground; and from your face I shall be hidden; and I shall be a fugitive and wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will slay me” (Gen 4:13-14). Cain is convinced that his sin will not obtain pardon from the Lord and that his inescapable destiny will be to have to “hide his face” from him. If Cain is capable of confessing that his fault is “greater than he can bear”, it is because he is conscious of being in the presence of God and before God’s just judgment. It is really only before the Lord that man can admit his sin and recognize its full seriousness. Such was the experience of David who, after “having committed evil in the sight of the Lord”, and being rebuked by the Prophet Nathan, exclaimed: “My offences truly I know them; my sin is always before me. Against you, you alone, have I sinned; what is evil in your sight I have done” (Ps 51:5-6).       

Iterum narrationem de Abel a fratre necato repetere possumus.

Postquam maledictum est ei a Deo, Cain sic Deum alloquitur: “Maior est poena mea quam ut portem eam. Ecce eicis me hodie a facie agri et a facie tua abscondar et ero vagus et profugus in terra; omnis igitur, qui invenerit me, occidet me” (Gen. 4, 13-14).

Cain autem arbitratur peccato suo ignosci a Domino non posse suamque sortem necessario illuc perducere, ut nimirum debeat “abscondi procul” ab eo. Si quidem Cain dicit “maior est” culpa mea, ipse propterea novit se esse ante Deum eiusque aequum iudicium. Revera Dei tantum in conspectu suum peccatum agnoscere potest homo eiusque gravitatem plane intellegere. Id ipsum David experitur, qui postquam “malum coram Domino fecit”, a Nathan propheta increpitus (Cfr. 2 Sam. 12, 11-12), clamat: “Iniquitatem meam ego agnosco, et peccatum meum contra me est semper. Tibi soli peccavi et malum coram te feci” (Ps 51 (50), 5-6).

        22. Consequently, when the sense of God is lost, the sense of man is also threatened and poisoned, as the Second Vatican Council concisely states: “Without the Creator the creature would disappear . . . But when God is forgotten the creature itself grows unintelligible”.[17] Man is no longer able to see himself as “mysteriously different” from other earthly creatures; he regards himself merely as one more living being, as an organism which, at most, has reached a very high stage of perfection. Enclosed in the narrow horizon of his physical nature, he is somehow reduced to being “a thing”, and no longer grasps the “transcendent” character of his “existence as man”. He no longer considers life as a splendid gift of God, something “sacred” entrusted to his responsibility and thus also to his loving care and “veneration”. Life itself becomes a mere “thing”, which man claims as his exclusive property, completely subject to his control and manipulation.

22. Quapropter, cum Dei sensus amittitur, hominis quoque sensus urgetur et polluitur, quemadmodum presse asseverat Concilium Vaticanum II: “Creatura enim sine Creatore evanescit... Immo, per oblivionem Dei ipsa creatura obscuratur” (Gaudium et Spes, 36). Homo iam non percipit se prae terrenis creaturis “mystice alium” esse; ipse unum ex multiplicibus animantibus se existimat, summum velut vivens quiddam, quod celsissimam perfectionem est adeptus. In orbe conclusus physicae suae structurae, quodammodo fit “res” nec iam indolem percipit “transcendentem” sui modi “exsistendi ut hominis”. Sic tamquam eximium Dei donum non amplius iudicat vitam, rem quandam “sacram” suae responsalitati ideoque amabili custodiae creditam suaeque “venerationi”. Ipsa plane fit “res”, quam sibi veluti suum ipsius mancipium vindicat, gubernabile prorsus et tractabile.

Thus, in relation to life at birth or at death, man is no longer capable of posing the question of the truest meaning of his own existence, nor can he assimilate with genuine freedom these crucial moments of his own history. He is concerned only with “doing”, and, using all kinds of technology, he busies himself with programming, controlling and dominating birth and death. Birth and death, instead of being primary experiences demanding to be “lived”, become things to be merely “possessed” or “rejected”.

Proposita ideo ante oculos vita quae nascitur et quae moritur, non amplius valet homo interrogari de verissimo suae vitae sensu, accipiens videlicet vera cum libertate haec decretoria suae “vitae” momenta. Eum solummodo “faciundi” tenet cura, atque ad omnes artes se conferens, ortum obitumque supputare, temperare et gubernare sollicite contendit. Experientiae hae, quae primigeniae requirunt ut “agantur”, res fiunt potius quaedam, quas tantum “possidere” aut “respuere” intendit homo.

Moreover, once all reference to God has been removed, it is not surprising that the meaning of everything else becomes profoundly distorted. Nature itself, from being “mater” (mother), is now reduced to being “matter”, and is subjected to every kind of manipulation. This is the direction in which a certain technical and scientific way of thinking, prevalent in present-day culture, appears to be leading when it rejects the very idea that there is a truth of creation which must be acknowledged, or a plan of God for life which must be respected. Something similar happens when concern about the consequences of such a “freedom without law” leads some people to the opposite position of a “law without freedom”, as for example in ideologies which consider it unlawful to interfere in any way with nature, practically “divinizing” it. Again, this is a misunderstanding of nature’s dependence on the plan of the Creator. Thus it is clear that the loss of contact with God’s wise design is the deepest root of modern man’s confusion, both when this loss leads to a freedom without rules and when it leaves man in “fear” of his freedom.

Omissa ceterum omni necessitudinis ratione cum Deo, non cuiquam admiratio movebitur, quod omnium inde rerum significatio funditus detorta evadit ac natura ipsa, iam non amplius “mater”, potius ad quandam redacta est “materiam” quibuslibet tractationibus obnoxiam. Huc perducere certa aliqua videtur consequentia technica et scientifica in culturalibus nostri temporis adiunctis iam dominans, quae nempe notionem ipsam veritatis de rebus creatis agnoscendae pernegat aut consilii divini de vita reverenda. Id quod haud minus est verum, cum anxietas de consectariis talis “libertatis sine lege” nonnullos in contrariam impellit sententiam “legis sine libertate”, prout, verbi causa, in quibusdam evenit opinationibus doctrinisque, ubi licere omnino negant quemvis in naturam interventum, tamquam si agatur de eius “divinizatione” quae tamen rursus ignorat ex consilio ipsius Conditoris pendere naturam.

By living “as if God did not exist”, man not only loses sight of the mystery of God, but also of the mystery of the world and the mystery of his own being.     

Vivens reapse “perinde ac si Deus non sit”, non modo a Dei mysterio, verum etiam a mundi ipsius arcano suaeque vitae aberrat.

Practical 

MAterialism

        23. The eclipse of the sense of God and of man inevitably leads to a practical materialism, which breeds individualism, utilitarianism and hedonism. Here too we see the permanent validity of the words of the Apostle: “And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct” (Rom 1:28). The values of being are replaced by those of having. The only goal which counts is the pursuit of one’s own material well-being. The so-called “quality of life” is interpreted primarily or exclusively as economic efficiency, inordinate consumerism, physical beauty and pleasure, to the neglect of the more profound dimensions--interpersonal, spiritual and religious--of existence.

23. Dei hominisque sensus obscuratio necessario ad materialismum practicum ducit, in quo individualismus, utilitarismus et hedonismus grassantur. Hinc etiam manifestatur perpetuo valere quod dicit Apostolus: “Et sicut non probaverunt Deum habere in notitia, tradidit eos Deus in reprobum sensum, ut faciant, quae non conveniunt” (Rom. 1, 28). Sic pro bonis ab esse inducuntur bona ab habere.

Unum viget propositum, scilicet corporalis commodi consecutio. “Vitae qualitas”, ut aiunt, magna vel tota ex parte habetur rei familiaris felicitas, inordinata consumendarum rerum fruitio, venustas et vitae corporis usus, altioribus existentiae qualitatibus neglectis rationalibus, spiritalibus et religiosis.

In such a context suffering, an inescapable burden of human existence but also a factor of possible personal growth, is “censored”, rejected as useless, indeed opposed as an evil, always and in every way to be avoided. When it cannot be avoided and the prospect of even some future well-being vanishes, then life appears to have lost all meaning and the temptation grows in man to claim the right to suppress it.

Hoc in rerum prospectu dolor, quo necessario humana vita oneratur et ceteroqui est personalis progressus pars, quadam “nota censoria” afficitur, tamquam inutilis res respuitur, immo tamquam malum semper et ubique vitandum depugnatur. Cum autem is superari non potest et futurae saltem valetudinis exspectatio evanescit, tum vita omnem sensum amittere videtur et in homine adolescit cupiditas iuris praesumpti eius interimendae.

Within this same cultural climate, the body is no longer perceived as a properly personal reality, a sign and place of relations with others, with God and with the world. It is reduced to pure materiality: it is simply a complex of organs, functions and energies to be used according to the sole criteria of pleasure and efficiency. Consequently, sexuality too is depersonalized and exploited: from being the sign, place and language of love, that is, of the gift of self and acceptance of another, in all the other’s richness as a person, it increasingly becomes the occasion and instrument for self-assertion and the selfish satisfaction of personal desires and instincts. Thus the original import of human sexuality is distorted and falsified, and the two meanings, unitive and procreative, inherent in the very nature of the conjugal act, are artificially separated: in this way the marriage union is betrayed and its fruitfulness is subjected to the caprice of the couple. Procreation then becomes the “enemy” to be avoided in sexual activity: if it is welcomed, this is only because it expresses a desire, or indeed the intention, to have a child “at all costs”, and not because it signifies the complete acceptance of the other and therefore an openness to the richness of life which the child represents.

Eodem semper in prospectu culturali, corpus iam non sumitur sicut realitas prorsus personalis, signum scilicet et locus necessitudinis cum aliis, cum Deo et cum mundo; ad meram redigitur materialitatem: simplex habetur organorum coacervatio, functionum viriumque ad meram voluptatis efficientiaeque rationem adhibendarum. Quam ob rem sexualitas quoque paene nudatur adque instrumentum quoddam redigitur: ex signo, loco et voce amoris, donationis scilicet sui ipsius et acceptionis alterius secundum cunctas personae divitias, magis magisque fit occasio et instrumentum dominationis sui ipsius necnon propriarum libidinum voluptatumque studiosa satisfactio. Depravatur ita et corrumpitur sexualitatis humanae primigenius sensus ac duae significationes, coniunctionis videlicet et procreationis, quae in ipsa coniugalis actus natura continentur, artificiose seiunguntur: hac sane ratione coniunctio violatur atque fecunditas subditur viri mulierisque arbitratui. Procreatio tunc fit “inimica”, quae in sexualitate agenda vitari debet: si forte eligitur, sumitur tantum quia proprium desiderium significat, vel directo propriam voluntatem “quacumque ratione” filium habendi, non quia alium prorsus accipere vult, ideoque vitae divitias sumere, quas filius secum fert.

In the materialistic perspective described so far, interpersonal relations are seriously impoverished. The first to be harmed are women, children, the sick or suffering, and the elderly. The criterion of personal dignity--which demands respect, generosity and service--is replaced by the criterion of efficiency, functionality and usefulness: others are considered not for what they “are”, but for what they “have, do and produce”. This is the supremacy of the strong over the weak.    

In materialistico ambitu hucusque proposito, inter personas necessitudines magnam imminutionem experiuntur. Detrimentum primi accipiunt mulier, puer, aegrotus vel patiens, senex. Iudicium dignitatis personalis proprium – scilicet observantiae, gratuitatis et servitii – substituitur efficientiae, functionalitatis utilitatisque iudicio: alter aestimatur non prout sic “est”, sed prout aliquid “habet, facit et efficit”. De dominatu agitur fortioris in debiliorem.

        24. It is at the heart of the moral conscience that the eclipse of the sense of God and of man, with all its various and deadly consequences for life, is taking place. It is a question, above all, of the individual conscience, as it stands before God in its singleness and uniqueness.[18] But it is also a question, in a certain sense, of the “moral conscience” of society: in a way it too is responsible, not only because it tolerates or fosters behaviour contrary to life, but also because it encourages the “culture of death”, creating and consolidating actual “structures of sin” which go against life. The moral conscience, both individual and social, is today subjected, also as a result of the penetrating influence of the media, to an extremely serious and mortal danger: that of confusion between good and evil, precisely in relation to the fundamental right to life. A large part of contemporary society looks sadly like that humanity which Paul describes in his Letter to the Romans. It is composed “of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth” (1:18): having denied God and believing that they can build the earthly city without him, “they became futile in their thinking” so that “their senseless minds were darkened” (1:21); “claiming to be wise, they became fools” (1:22), carrying out works deserving of death, and “they not only do them but approve those who practise them” (1:32). When conscience, this bright lamp of the soul (cf. Mt 6:22-23), calls “evil good and good evil” (Is 5:20), it is already on the path to the most alarming corruption and the darkest moral blindness.

24. Ipsa in intima morali conscientia perficitur Dei hominisque sensus obscuratio, multiplicibus suis perniciosisque de vita consecutionibus. Ante omnia cuiusque conscientia in medio ponitur, quae una et non iterabilis sola Dei in conspectu stat (Cfr. Gaudium et Spes, 16). At agitur quoque ratione quadam de societatis “conscientia morali”; ipsa quodammodo est responsalis non modo quia tolerat vel consuetudinibus vitae adversantibus favet, verum quia et “mortis culturam” alit, quippe quae ipsas “structuras peccati” adversum vitam efficiat et confirmet. Conscientia moralis, tum personalis tum socialis, etiam ob instrumentorum socialis communicationis praepotentes virtutes, pergravi mortiferoque periculo hodie subditur: permixtionis scilicet boni malique, quod attinet ad idem fundamentale vitae ius. Hodiernae societatis tanta pars infeliciter cum ea aequatur humanitate, quam in Epistula ad Romanos describit Paulus. Componitur hominibus “qui veritatem in iniustitia detinent” (Rom. 1, 18): quandoquidem Deum deseruerunt et terrenam civitatem sine eo condi posse iudicarunt, “evanuerunt in cogitationibus suis”, ideo “obscuratum est insipiens cor eorum” (Ibid. 1, 21); “dicentes se esse sapientes, stulti facti sunt” (Ibid. 1, 22), operum mortis artifices facti sunt et “non solum ea faciunt, sed et consentiunt facientibus” (Ibid. 1, 32). Cum conscientia, lucens scilicet animae oculus (Cfr. Matth. 6, 22-23), dicit “malum bonum et bonum malum” (Is. 5, 20), iter persollicitae depravationis et caliginosissimae moralis caecitatis iam est ingressa.

And yet all the conditioning and efforts to enforce silence fail to stifle the voice of the Lord echoing in the conscience of every individual: it is always from this intimate sanctuary of the conscience that a new journey of love, openness and service to human life can begin.

Verum condiciones et conatus ad silentium iniungendum Domini vocem includere non valent quae in cuiusque hominis conscientia insonat: hoc ipso ex intimo conscientiae sacrario novum amoris iter explicari potest, ad vitam humanam accipiendam et ministrandam.

Signs of 

Hope

[25-28] “You have come to the sprinkled blood”
(cf. Heb 12: 22, 24):
SIGNS of HOPE and INVITATION to COMMITMENT

“Accessistis ad sanguinem aspersionis” (Cfr. Hebr. 12, 22. 24): spei signa et ad officium invitatio

         25. “The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground” (Gen 4:10). It is not only the voice of the blood of Abel, the first innocent man to be murdered, which cries to God, the source and defender of life. The blood of every other human being who has been killed since Abel is also a voice raised to the Lord. In an absolutely singular way, as the author of the Letter to the Hebrews reminds us, the voice of the blood of Christ, of whom Abel in his innocence is a prophetic figure, cries out to God: “You have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God ... to the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel” (12:22, 24).

25. “Vox sanguinis fratris tui clamat ad me de agro” (Gen. 4, 10). Non vox dumtaxat sanguinis Abel, primi innoxii interempti, clamat ad Deum, fontem vitaeque praesidium. Cuiusque quoque hominis sanguis post Abel necati fere vox fit quaedam quae ad Dominum pervenit. Peculiari prorsus modo clamat ad Deum vox sanguinis Christi, cuius Abel in innocentia sua figura est prophetica, quemadmodum Epistulae ad Hebraeos auctor commemorat: “Sed accessistis ad Sion montem et civitatem Dei viventis... et Testamenti Novi mediatorem Iesum, et sanguinem aspersionis, melius loquentem quam Abel” (Hebr. 12, 22. 24).

It is the sprinkled blood. A symbol and prophetic sign of it had been the blood of the sacrifices of the Old Covenant, whereby God expressed his will to communicate his own life to men, purifying and consecrating them (cf. Ex 24:8; Lev 17:11). Now all of this is fulfilled and comes true in Christ: his is the sprinkled blood which redeems, purifies and saves; it is the blood of the Mediator of the New Covenant “poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Mt 26:28). This blood, which flows from the pierced side of Christ on the Cross (cf. Jn 19:34), “speaks more graciously” than the blood of Abel; indeed, it expresses and requires a more radical “justice”, and above all it implores mercy,[19] it makes intercession for the brethren before the Father (cf. Heb 7:25), and it is the source of perfect redemption and the gift of new life.

Est sanguis aspersionis. Huius figura et praenuntium signum fuit sanguis sacrificiorum Veteris Foederis, quibus Deus voluntatem ostendebat vitam suam cum hominibus communicandi, eos purificando et consecrando (Cfr. Ex. 24, 8; Lev. 17, 11). Haec omnia in Christo nunc consummantur et ad effectum adducuntur: eius est sanguis aspersionis qui redimit, qui purificat, qui salvat; sanguis est Mediatoris Novi Foederis “qui pro multis effunditur in remissionem peccatorum” (Matth. 26, 28). Sanguis hic, ex latere scatens Christi in cruce perforato (Cfr. Io. 19, 34), vox “loquentior” est quam sanguis Abel: ille enim significat et altiorem “iustitiam” vindicat, at praesertim misericordiam deprecatur (Cfr. S. GREGORII MAGNI Moralia in Iob, 13, 23: CCL 143 A, 683), apud Patrem pro fratribus fit intercessor (Cfr. Hebr. 7, 25), fons est perfectae redemptionis atque vitae novae donum.

The blood of Christ, while it reveals the grandeur of the Father’s love, shows how precious man is in God’s eyes and bow priceless the value of his life. The Apostle Peter reminds us of this: “You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot” (1 Pt 1:18-19). Precisely by contemplating the precious blood of Christ, the sign of his self-giving love (cf. Jn 13:1), the believer learns to recognize and appreciate the almost divine dignity of every human being and can exclaim with ever renewed and grateful wonder: “How precious must man be in the eyes of the Creator, if he ‘gained so great a Redeemer’ (Exsultet of the Easter Vigil), and if God ‘gave his only Son’ in order that man ‘should not perish but have eternal life’ (cf. Jn 3:16)!”.[20]

Christi sanguis, dum permagnam Patris dilectionem revelat, ostendit simul quemadmodum pretiosus sit ante Dei oculos homo et inaestimabile sit eius vitae bonum. Id quidem apostolus Petrus commemorat: “Scientes quod non corruptibilibus argento vel auro redempti estis de vana vestra conversatione a patribus tradita, sed pretioso sanguine quasi Agni incontaminati et immaculati Christi” (1 Petr. 1, 18-19). Ipsum contemplans pretiosum Christi sanguinem, donationis eius amoris signum (Cfr. Io. 13, 1), fidelis dignitatem quasi divinam singulorum hominum agnoscere et aestimare discit atque renovata grataque admiratione affectus clamare potest: “Quantum enim momentum ac pretium habere debet homo in conspectu Creatoris, si «talem ac tantum meruit habere Redemptorem» («Exsultet» vigiliae Paschalis), si Deus dedit Filium suum Unigenitum, ut ille, homo scilicet, non pereat sed habeat vitam aeternam! (Cfr. Io. 3, 16)” (IOANNIS PAULI PP. II Redemptoris Hominis, 10).

Furthermore, Christ’s blood reveals to man that his greatness, and therefore his vocation, consists in the sincere gift of self. Precisely because it is poured out as the gift of life, the blood of Christ is no longer a sign of death, of definitive separation from the brethren, but the instrument of a communion which is richness of life for all. Whoever in the Sacrament of the Eucharist drinks this blood and abides in Jesus (cf. Jn 6:56) is drawn into the dynamism of his love and gift of life, in order To bring to its fullness the original vocation to love which belongs to everyone (cf. Gen 1:27; 2:18-24).

Christi sanguis, praeterea, homini ipsi revelat eius granditatem, ideoque eius vocationem, in sincera sui donatione collocari. Propterea quod ut vitae donum funditur, Christi sanguis iam non est mortis signum, decretoriae a fratribus seiunctionis, sed communionis instrumentum omnibus divitias afferentis. Qui in Eucharistiae sacramento sanguinem hunc bibit et in Christo manet (Cfr. Io. 6, 56) in ipsius eadem amoris vi vitaeque donatione conglobatur, ut primigeniam amoris vocationem consummet cuique homini propriam (Cfr. Gen. 1, 27; 2, 18-24).

It is from the blood of Christ that all draw the strength to commit themselves to promoting life. It is precisely this blood that is the most powerful source of hope, indeed it is the foundation of the absolute certitude that in God’s plan life will be victorious. “And death shall be no more”, exclaims the powerful voice which comes from the throne of God in the Heavenly Jerusalem (Rev 21:4). And Saint Paul assures us that the present victory over sin is a sign and anticipation of the definitive victory over death, when there “shall come to pass the saying that is written: ‘Death is swallowed up in victory’. ‘O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?”‘ (1 Cor 15:54-55).       

Ex eodem Christi sanguine hauriunt omnes homines vim, ut operam navent pro vita. Hic ipse sanguis spei est solidior causa, immo est fundamentum absolutae certitudinis ex Dei consilio vitae victoriam esse futuram. “Et mors ultra non erit”, clamat praepotens vox oriens de Dei throno Hierosolymis in caelesti civitate (Apoc. 21, 4), Et sanctus Paulus nos certiores facit praesentem ex peccatis victoriam signum praesumptionemque esse perfectae victoriae de morte, cum “Scripturarum adimplebitur verbum: «Absorpta est mors in victoria. Ubi est, mors, victoria tua? Ubi est, mors, stimulus tuus?»“ (1 Cor. 15, 54-5).

        26. In effect, signs which point to this victory are not lacking in our societies and cultures, strongly marked though they are by the “culture of death”. It would therefore be to give a one-sided picture, which could lead to sterile discouragement, if the condemnation of the threats to life were not accompanied by the presentation of the positive signs at work in humanity’s present situation.

26. Huius victoriae profecto praenuntia signa haud desunt in nostris societatibus culturisque, “mortis cultura” sic penitus notatis. Manca datur species, quae spem eripere inaniter potest, si denuntiationem minationum in vitam non comitantur demonstrata quaedam affirmantia signa, quae in hodierno hominum statu operantur.

Unfortunately it is often hard to see and recognize these positive signs, perhaps also because they do not receive sufficient attention in the communications media. Yet, how many initiatives of help and support for people who are weak and defenceless have sprung up and continue to spring up in the Christian community and in civil society, at the local, national and international level, through the efforts of individuals, groups, movements and organizations of various kinds!

Dolendum est quia haec affirmantia signa laboriose manifestantur et agnoscuntur, fortasse eo etiam quod in communicationis socialis instrumentis haud curiose ostenduntur. At quot incepta orta sunt et usque oriuntur ad debiliores et inermes personas iuvandas et sustinendas in christiana civilique communitate, in locali, nationali et internationali ambitu, singulis viris, sodaliciis, motibus et multiplicibus institutionibus operam praebentibus!

There are still many married couples who, with a generous sense of responsibility, are ready to accept children as “the supreme gift of marriage”.[21] Nor is there a lack of families which, over and above their everyday service to life, are willing to accept abandoned children, boys and girls and teenagers in difficulty, handicapped persons, elderly men and women who have been left alone. Many centres in support of life, or similar institutions, are sponsored by individuals and groups which, with admirable dedication and sacrifice, offer moral and material support to mothers who are in difficulty and are tempted to have recourse to abortion. Increasingly, there are appearing in many places groups of volunteers prepared to offer hospitality to persons without a family, who find themselves in conditions of particular distress or who need a supportive environment to help them to overcome destructive habits and discover anew the meaning of life.

Multi sunt adhuc coniuges qui liberaliter officioseque filios suscipiunt veluti “praestantissimum matrimonii donum” (Gaudium et Spes, 50). Nec desunt familiae, quae suum praeter cotidianum vitae servitium, derelictos pueros, adulescentes iuvenesque difficultatibus laborantes, inpeditas personas, desertos senes suscipiunt. Non paucae sedes vitae iuvandae vel similes institutiones a singulis vel a coetibus promoventur, qui admirabili quodam studio suique impendio re spirituque sustentant nutantes et laborantes matres, quae ad abortum adhibendum pelliciuntur. Voluntariorum quoque sodalicia oriuntur et diffunduntur, qui operam navant ut hospitio recipiantur familia carentes, peculiaribus in angustiis versantes vel quaerentes aptum educationis locum ubi auxilium ad perniciosos habitus deponendos et vitae sensum recuperandum inveniant.

Medical science, thanks to the committed efforts of researchers and practitioners, continues in its efforts to discover ever more effective remedies: treatments which were once inconceivable but which now offer much promise for the future are today being developed for the unborn, the suffering and those in an acute or terminal stage of sickness. Various agencies and organizations are mobilizing their efforts to bring the benefits of the most advanced medicine to countries most afflicted by poverty and endemic diseases. In a similar way national and international associations of physicians are being organized to bring quick relief to peoples affected by natural disasters, epidemics or wars. Even if a just international distribution of medical resources is still far from being a reality, how can we not recognize in the steps taken so far the sign of a growing solidarity among peoples, a praiseworthy human and moral sensitivity and a greater respect for life?      

Medica ars, quae magno cum officio ab inquisitoribus et valetudinis opificibus vestigatur, usque in suis conatibus progreditur ad magis magisque efficacia remedia invenienda: effectus reportati sunt qui olim ne cogitari quidem potuerunt quique bonam afferunt spem pro nascenti vita, pro personis valetudine laborantibus et gravibus vel extremis morbis insanabiliter correptis. Sodalitates et institutiones multiplices contendunt ut etiam in Nationibus miseriis lueque pandema affectis recentioris medicinae beneficia afferantur. Itemque nationales internationalesque medicorum consociationes tempestive ad opem incolis ferendam se comparant, qui naturae calamitatibus, morbis contagiosis bellisve vexantur. In medicinae copiis partiendis etsi multum abest ut certa internationalis iustitia plene efficiatur, quidni non agnoscamus in progressibus ad hoc usque tempus peractis inter populos solidarietatis signa simulque humani moralisque sensus et maioris vitae observantiae?

        27. In view of laws which permit abortion and in view of efforts, which here and there have been successful, to legalize euthanasia, movements and initiatives to raise social awareness in defence of life have sprung up in many parts of the world. When, in accordance with their principles, such movements act resolutely, but without resorting to violence, they promote a wider and more profound consciousness of the value of life, and evoke and bring about a more determined commitment to its defence.

27. Coram legibus quae abortum siverunt atque coram conatibus ad euthanasiam iure comprobandam hic illic ad effectum adductis, toto in terrarum orbe motus inceptaque orta sunt quaedam ad socialem sensum pro vita acuendum. Quando vero sincera cum sua mente plane convenientes firmiter agunt, amota tamen vi, hi motus latiorem de bono vitae conscientiam et intellectum fovent ac pariter acrius officium vitam tuendi concitant atque efficiunt.

Furthermore, how can we fail to mention all those daily gestures of openness, sacrifice and unselfish care which countless people lovingly make in families, hospitals, orphanages, homes for the elderly and other centres or communities which defend life? Allowing herself to be guided by the example of Jesus the “Good Samaritan” (cf. Lk 10:29-37) and upheld by his strength, the Church bas always been in the front line in providing charitable help: so many of her sons and daughters, especially men and women Religious, in traditional and ever new forms, have consecrated and continue to consecrate their lives to God, freely giving of themselves out of love for their neighbour, especially for the weak and needy.

Nonne commemorandi praeterea cotidiani gestus acceptionis, sacrificii, gratuitae curae quos amanter agunt innumeri homines in familiis, in valetudinariis, orphanotrophiis, domibus senibus destinatis, in sedibus pro vita et in consociationibus? Iesu “boni Samaritani” (Cfr. Luc.10, 29-37) exemplum persequens eiusque robore sustentata, Ecclesia semper primarium locum obtinuit in his caritatis finibus: permulti eius filii filiaeque, religiosi religiosaequae potissimum, vetustis atque usque novis formis, vitam Deo consecraverunt et consecrare pergunt, proximo debiliori indigentiorique eam dicantes.

These deeds strengthen the bases of the “civilization of love and life”, without which the life of individuals and of society itself loses its most genuinely human quality. Even if they go unnoticed and remain hidden to most people, faith assures us that the Father “who sees in secret” (Mt 6:6) not only will reward these actions but already here and now makes them produce lasting fruit for the good of all.

Eiusmodi actiones ipsae illum “amoris vitaeque cultum” funditus aedificant, quo amoto personarum societatis existentia suam claram proprieque humanam significationem amittit. Etiamsi a nullo notantur atque a pluribus ignorantur, fides nos certiores reddit Patrem, “qui videt in abscondito” (Matth. 4, 6) non modo eos compensaturum, verum iam nunc eos diuturnis fructibus pro omnibus fecundos redditurum.

Among the signs of hope we should also count the spread, at many levels of public opinion, of a new sensitivity ever more opposed to war as an instrument for the resolution of conflicts between peoples, and increasingly oriented to finding effective but “non-violent” means to counter the armed aggressor. In the same perspective there is evidence of a growing public opposition to the death penalty, even when such a penalty is seen as a kind of “legitimate defence” on the part of society. Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform.

Inter spei signa variis in publicae opinionis ordinibus novus augescens sensus magis magisque bello contrarius annumeratur, qui veluti instrumentum usurpatur ad controversias inter populos solvendas, dum contra efficacia at “vi carentia” instrumenta expetuntur et perquiruntur ut armatus hostis contineatur. Eodem in rerum prospectu latius usque publica diffunditur opinio capitis poenae aversa etiam veluti “legitimae defensionis” socialis instrumentum, quandoquidem hodierna societas facultates habet crimina efficaciter coërcendi his usa rationibus quae hinc sontem reddant innoxium, hinc viam resipiscendi omnino non intercludant.

Another welcome sign is the growing attention being paid to the quality of life and to ecology, especially in more developed societies, where people’s expectations are no longer concentrated so much on problems of survival as on the search for an overall improvement of living conditions. Especially significant is the reawakening of an ethical reflection on issues affecting life. The emergence and ever more widespread development of bioethics is promoting more reflection and dialogue--between believers and non-believers, as well as between followers of different religions--on ethical problems, including fundamental issues pertaining to human life. 

Qualitatis quoque vitae et oecologiae studium augescens est dilaudandum, quod praesertim conspicitur in societatibus valde excultis, in quibus hominum exspectationes non tam in rebus vitae necessariis versantur, quam generatim in melioribus vitae condicionibus. Magni est momenti revocata de vita ethica inquisitio: cum enim orta sit et usque adoleverit bioëthica, coluntur vestigatio ac dialogus – videlicet inter credentes et non credentes, itemque inter diversarum religionum credentes – de ethicis rebus, etiam praecipuis, quae ad hominis vitam spectant.

   28. This situation, with its lights and shadows, ought to make us all fully aware that we are facing an enormous and dramatic clash between good and evil, death and life, the “culture of death” and the “culture of life”. We find ourselves not only “faced with” but necessarily “in the midst of” this conflict: we are all involved and we all share in it, with the inescapable responsibility of choosing to be unconditionally pro-life.

28. Hic conspectus luce umbraque pervasus nos omnes conscios prorsus reddere debet coram acerrima et gravissima nos sistere dimicatione quae inter bonum et malum, vitam inter ac mortem, “mortis culturam” et “vitae culturam” contenditur. Sistimus non “pro”, verum necessario “inter” hanc dimicationem: omnes nempe implicamur et inevitabili officio compellimur, ut sine condicionibus pro vita eligamus.

For us too Moses’ invitation rings out loud and clear: “See, I have set before you this day life and good, death and evil.... I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live” (Dt 30:15,19). This invitation is very appropriate for us who are called day by day to the duty of choosing between the “culture of life” and the “culture of death”. But the call of Deuteronomy goes even deeper, for it urges us to make a choice which is properly religious and moral. It is a question of giving our own existence a basic orientation and living the law of the Lord faithfully and consistently: “If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you this day, by loving the Lord your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his ordinances, then you shall live ... therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live, loving the Lord your God, obeying his voice, and cleaving to him; for that means life to you and length of days” (30:16,19-20).

Ad nos quoque illud Moysis clare et vehementer clamat: “Considera quod hodie proposuerim in conspectu tuo vitam et bonum, et e contrario mortem et malum...; proposuerim vobis vitam et mortem, benedictionem et maledictionem. Elige ergo vitam, ut tu vivas et semen tuum” (Deut. 30, 15. 19). Quod nobis quoque prorsus convenit, qui cotidie ad decernendum inter “vitae culturam” et “mortis culturam” vocamur. At altius est Deuteronomii monitum, quia ad religiosam moralemque electionem proprie nos concitat. Nam cuiusque vitae cursus funditus est disponendus atque fideliter constanterque Domini lex est tenenda: “Ego praecipio tibi hodie, ut diligas Dominum Deum tuum et ambules in viis eius et custodias mandata illius et praecepta et iudicia... Elige ergo vitam, ut et tu vivas et semen tuum et diligas Dominum Deum tuum atque oboedias voci eius et illi adhaereas, ipse est enim vita tua et longitudo dierum tuorum” (Ibid. 30, 16. 19-20).

The unconditional choice for life reaches its full religious and moral meaning when it flows from, is formed by and nourished by faith in Christ. Nothing helps us so much to face positively the conflict between death and life in which we are engaged as faith in the Son of God who became man and dwelt among men so “that they may have life, and have it abundantly” (Jn 10:10). It is a matter of faith in the Risen Lord, who has conquered death; faith in the blood of Christ “that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel” (Heb 12:24).

Sine condicionibus pro vita electio plene religiosam moralemque significationem adipiscitur cum manat, fingitur et alitur fide in Christo. Ut inter mortem et vitam, quibus implicamur dimicantes, victores discedamus, nihil magis potest quam fides in Dei Filio qui homo factus est et inter homines venit “ut vitam habeant et abundantius habeant” (Io. 10, 10): fides est in Christo Resuscitato, qui mortem vicit; fides est quae Christi sanguinem complectitur, “melius loquentem quam Abel” (Hebr. 12, 24).

With the light and strength of this faith, therefore, in facing the challenges of the present situation, the Church is becoming more aware of the grace and responsibility which come to her from her Lord of proclaiming, celebrating and serving the Gospel of life.

Quapropter, fulgore atque vi huius fidei, coram provocationibus hodiernarum rerum condicionum, Ecclesia magis magisque sibi fit conscia gratiae et officii quae a Domino ei tribuuntur ut enuntiet, celebret et inserviat Evangelio vitae.