Evangelium Vitae (1995)

The release of Pope John Paul II's latest encyclical, Evangelium Vitae, prompted amazingly fair, accurate, and even positive reports in the secular press--along with some quite vicious attacks in some national Catholic publications. "Just another diatribe against sex and abortion," seemed to be the liberal Catholic consensus. Yet there were some conservative Catholics who were also not pleased. No less a figure than William F. Buckley expressed, if not anger, then disappointment--and puzzlement--in the latest National Review. For, as he read it--and as the secular press read it--this was not simply another rehash of anti-abortion rhetoric, but a statement which restated much traditional Catholic teaching, but drew from it some rather bold new conclusions. New conclusions that led Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to announce at a March 30 press conference that just published Catechism of the Catholic Church will have to be revised to account for the "real development" in Catholic teaching that occurs in this encyclical.

What caused the secular press to take notice, and what puzzled Buckley, and what the liberal Catholic press seemed not to notice immediately, was that the Pope in this encyclical says plainly that to be pro-life means much more than to be against abortion or euthanasia. To be pro-life means to be an advocate of the protection of human life in all circumstances, at all stages. Even, he suggests, in the case of condemned murderers.

What I wish to do in this introductory presentation, is to set Evangelium Vitae in context, and to trace briefly how the Pope came to his conclusions. My training is in church history, and in Scripture, not in moral theology.

One hundred years ago Pope Leo XIII issued two groundbreaking encyclicals. The first was Rerum Novarum, "On the Condition of Workers," in 1892. The second, Providentissimus Deus, "On the Study of the Holy Scriptures," in 1893.

Rerum Novarum was concerned with the rise of what was then called "Liberalism" --the idea that government should be small, and concerned only with preserving law and good order--what today we would call "Conservatism." Pope Leo was equally concerned about the reaction against this, called, then and now, "Socialism"--at that time merely a theory. The state, said Pope Leo, must preserve individual liberty, while at the same time preserving the common good. The weak and the poor must be protected, and the rights of labor guaranteed. Neither an unrestrained free market, nor class warfare, can create a just society--only a system which protects the rights of individuals--especially those individuals least able to defend themselves.

This double-edged sword was sharpened at Vatican II, particularly in Gaudium et Spes, the "Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World," and in Dignitatis humanae, the "Declaration on Religious Liberty," both released at the end of the Council, December 7, 1965. The foundation of the Church's social teaching is its doctrine of Creation--the human person is created by God, in the image of God, and thus has an innate dignity--a dignity and a value based not on what the person can do or has done, but rooted in what the person is, as God's creation. This dignity must be always preserved, and with it, the rights to life and liberty.

Pope John Paul II begins Evangelium Vitae by citing the condemnation in Gaudium et Spes of what he calls "crimes and attacks against human life," a condemnation which, he says, "retains all its relevance today":

Whatever is opposed to life itself such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or willful 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.

Rather than decreasing since Vatican II, these conditions are increasing, he says.

Choices once unanimously considered criminal and rejected by the common moral sense are gradually becoming socially acceptable. . . . [C]onscience itself, darkened as it were by . . . widespread conditioning [in society against life, and in favor of individualism and relativism], is finding it increasingly difficult to distinguish between good and evil in what concerns the basic value of human life.

Therefore, he says, his task in this encyclical is to give "a precise and vigorous reaffirmation of the value of human life and its inviolability," and to appeal to each person, "Respect, protect, love and serve life, every human life!"

But, say some, one who has committed a murder is different from an innocent unborn child. He has committed a crime against life, and to demonstrate the value of life he must forfeit his. And they point to certain Biblical texts to justify that stand.

So the pope begins building his case for the value of all human life from the Bible (and his frequent use of Scripture is rooted in the growth in Catholic Biblical study sparked by that other encyclical by Leo XIII I mentioned, Providentissimus Deus). He goes to the story of the first murder, in Genesis 4--the story of Cain and Abel. He makes three points based on this story.

First, Cain's crime is an offense against God and against God's creation. He has taken a life which was not his to take.

And yet--second point--God did not demand Cain's death in return. In fact, he put a mark upon him, lest anyone kill him--even accidentally. Says the pope, "Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this." And he quotes an interesting passage from St. Ambrose, the teacher of St. Augustine:

Once the crime is admitted . . . , 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, 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.

And the third point arises in God's conversation with Cain. "Where is Abel, your brother?" "I don't know," replies Cain. "Am I my brother's keeper?" And God's implied response, which the pope makes explicit, is "Yes." Each of us is. We have an obligation to keep and to protect and to preserve human life at all stages, in all circumstances, from all threats. Not just those condemned by Vatican II, such as abortion and euthanasia and genocide, but even threats to human life that "are the result of situations of violence, hatred and conflicting interests, which lead people to attack others. . . ."

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!

The problem, as John Paul sees it, is not just with individuals who commit certain crimes, but in philosophies, and in the social structures in which those philosophies are embodied. The pope sees that today's world has enshrined an anti-life philosophy in a false understanding of democracy and of individual rights. "I can do anything I want with my own body--or my own land--or my own company" "Abortion (or euthanasia) is the law of the land, and majority rules, so live with it!" Democracy and individual rights are good, the pope agrees--but they can't be turned into idols. The test of each comes in how the weak and the powerless fare. Human value does not lie in what one has done or has failed to do or is capable of doing. Human dignity does not diminish through impaired mental capacity, illness, poverty or race. A murderer has the same dignity and right to life as an unborn child. A welfare mother with nine children has the same right to life and to health as a capitalist who has pulled himself up by his own bootstraps.

The moment you suggest that one's value lies in what one can do or has done, that some categories of people can or should be eliminated, or are not worth the effort or cost of preserving, you open the door to the same sort of moral relativism which made the holocaust possible. The moment you suggest that democracy is absolute, and all laws ought to be obeyed simply because they have been passed by a majority vote, then you open the door to the same misguided zeal which led 19th century Boston to return escaped slaves--and which led Germany to democratically elect Adolph Hitler chancellor.

The pope's concerns are not new--though the Church has not always spoken as clearly or as forcefully as it can and must today. It is as old as the tale of Cain and Abel, and is the teaching of the earliest Church. The pope cites the oldest non-Biblical Christian document, The Didache, or "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles."

This is the way of death: . . . 'They love vanity,' 'look for profit,' have no pity for the poor, do not exert themselves for the oppressed, ignore their Maker, 'murder children,' corrupt God's image, turn their backs on the needy, oppress the afflicted, defend the rich, unjustly condemn the poor, and are thoroughly wicked. My children, may you be saved from all this!

To be pro-life, then--at least as far as the Catholic Church is concerned--is more than just being against abortion. To be pro-life is to guard and protect and defend all human life. The teaching of the Church is becoming very clear--we cannot blindly follow social or political movements which are against abortion, but which favor the death penalty (or the murder of abortionists), encourage militarism, and trample on the poor, the alien and the environment. Individual Catholics may reject this linking of life issues, but the so-called conservative who does so must realize that he is going against the teaching of the Church as certainly as the one who argues for the right to an abortion. The pro-life ethic of the Catholic Church is a seamless garment, which cannot be divided or modified without destroying it.