The reception of the Instruction Donum vitae
Prof. Gonzalo Herranz, group of work of Bioethics, University of Navarra
Le Nuove Biotecnologie: La Responsabilità di chi ha responsabilità (New Biotechnologies: The Responsibility of those who have responsibility)
Centro Culturale San Carlo
Milan, May 9, 1987
1. General typology of responses to the Instruction
The acceptance-silence response and its probable causes
2. The contribution of education to the ethical commons
3. A spirited response and manager
I am very happy to be here with you today. And I am also very grateful, because the topic that Dr. Edoardo Beretta offered me to discuss in front of you refers to an issue that is of great interest to me. In his letter of invitation he expressed to me a concern that, it seems, is widely shared. He was referring to the fact that not a few Catholics, of those who abide by the doctrine of the Instruction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on respect for nascent life and the dignity of procreation, experience certain difficulties when faced with the responsibility of defending and spreading it. They accept it, but are silent. Their adherence seems rather intellectual and cold, because neither in the environment of work nor in society, they have been mobilized to explain to others the human and ethical values embedded in the principles, reasoning and directives of the Instruction.
I think it is very interesting to analyze this position and to situate it within the varied set of attitudes with which people have reacted to the publication of the Instruction. This analysis will lead us to consider a very important topic internship : the role that Catholic doctrine should play in that kind of homeostatic balance of social and biomedical morality that we call ethical pluralism. I believe that, if we come to understand the meaning of our contribution to the pluralism in force, it will be easier for us to assume our responsibilities in the field of bioethics and to discover the vast possibilities of action that are open to us. This is how I have interpreted the assignment I received from the Centro Culturale San Carlo through Dr. Beretta's letter.
I will divide my speech into three parts.
In the first, I will try to describe some of the prototype responses to the Instruction that have appeared so far. I will pay more detailed attention to that particular combination of acceptance-silence characteristic of some believers, to which I alluded earlier.
In the second part, I will consider whether the Instruction contains universally valid ethical values that contribute to enriching the common heritage of Bioethics, and to what extent these values should be expressed and assumed in the context of a well-understood ethical pluralism.
In the third part, and by way of conclusion, I will point out what can be the elements of a program to reveal to others the ethical quality of the Instruction, to commit ourselves to the diffusion of its doctrine with an effort proportional to the formidable challenge that the artificialization of human procreation represents for humanity.
I hope that, once my speech is over, we can engage in a lively dialogue on the points that may have aroused the most interest or disagreement. I am optimistic enough to suspect that some may have provoked some support.
Before entering subject, a word of caution: I will not approach today's topic with an aseptic and distant criterion. I confess that it is impossible for me to shake off a strong prejudice in favor of Christian-inspired ethics: I believe it to be superior to other ethical currents in its almost unlimited capacity to do more good, to create more room for respect for man and to inspire the right progress of science.
Let us now turn to the first point.
1. General typology of responses to the Instruction
It is evident that not enough time has elapsed for serious and reflective works to have been written on the Instruction. With the exception of the monograph "Il Dono della Vita", published here in Milan by the Centro di Bioetica of the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, the material at my disposal is practically made up of press clippings. The major organs of opinion (newspapers, radio and television) have expressed, in commentaries, editorials or special programs, their immediate reaction upon learning of the Instruction. Some very influential scientific journals have also done so, although it is surprising, however, that, after quite a few weeks, some journals that are very significant in the modulation of public opinion in Medicine have maintained a complete silence on the Instruction.
As is well known and was to be expected, there have been reactions to suit all tastes: some enthusiastic and others lukewarm; others, ranging from unmitigated contempt to moderate and respectful disagreement. There are those who recognize in the Instruction a model of how, from a confessional point of view, a very thorny ethical problem can be discussed reasonably and before the general public; but there are also those who consider the Instruction as the most recent and definitive repudiation by the Church of Rome of today's science and society.
I do not have data about what could be considered as a representative sample of the overall response to the Instruction and a assessment of its contents. It is not difficult, however, to make some rough and tentative approximations. The resounding condemnations en bloc come, as was to be expected, from sectarian positions that never hide their unqualified belligerence against the Christian vision of man or against any action of the Magisterium. In contrast, we must note with regret that the applause of those who appreciate the magnificent wealth of ethical values of the Instruction has not resounded in the public place with comparable intensity.
Perhaps what has abounded most has been the ambivalent commentary, built with alternating layers, more or less thick depending on the case, of praise and criticism. This has been the predominant response in moderate circles, many of which declare themselves Catholic. They find in the Vatican document not a few things that deserve their approval. They express their satisfaction, to a greater or lesser degree, at seeing certain ideas proclaimed by the Church, such as respect for the autonomy of the sciences and the impossibility of the ethical neutrality of scientific business ; the ethical priority of the values of the person over mere technical efficacy; the respect due to nascent human life; the homologation of human embryos with other members of the human race and the licitness of prenatal medical diagnosis and treatment; the moral condemnation of destructive experimentation and degrading or inhuman manipulations of the embryo. They agree with agreement that the condemnation of heterologous artificial fertilization is congruent with the Christian notion of the unity of marriage and are ready to accept more or less broad segments of the anthropological doctrine set forth in the Instruction.
But for many, the rock of scandal is the ethical reprobation of homologous artificial fertilization. They consider the arguments adduced by the Instruction to be subtle, disproportionate or simply invalid. From certain sectors of the Catholic camp, a resounding murmur of disenchantment arose when they saw that the Instruction contained a clear moral condemnation of the methods of homologous artificial insemination. The rejection has taken various forms. Some have been inclined to open rebellion. Some physicians, bioethicists or professors of some Catholic universities have decided to disregard the disciplinary prescriptions of the Instruction concerning Catholic hospitals and propose the establishment of discussions to modify, at least partially, the content of the Instruction. Others have preferred to find consolation by relativizing the magisterial value of the Instruction, which they consider a meritorious catechetical work , a document provisional, a trial balloon to make a survey of the acceptability of the doctrine in confessional and secular instances. As we all know, there were inevitable allusions to certain clichés of the occasion, and there was no shortage of those who spoke of a new Galileo case or a repetition of the terrible doctrinal rupture that occurred in the Church following the promulgation of Humanae Vitae.
The acceptance-silence response and its probable causes
I think that, fortunately, there are countless faithful Catholics who have received with joy and grateful acceptance the entire content of the Instruction. But, that is my impression, they have written few letters to the newspapers, they have not participated in the radio broadcasts that were broadcast in response to the Instruction, they have not been lavish in declaring that they share and love the doctrine of the document on respect for nascent life and the dignity of human procreation. Why, since March 10, have they been behaving like a silent majority and their silence continues to last until today? In particular, this question is addressed, as suggested by the degree scroll of the lecture suggested by Dr. Beretta, to those who have responsibility: first of all to physicians, but also to all those who in one way or another are called to create and maintain the ethical environment of our society. Why do we not speak and write in favor of the Instruction with the intensity required by the vastness of the problem and the ethical values at stake?
I confess that I have not made any research on this point and that I must limit myself to offer, on the reasons for this silence, a hypothesis based on indications and data gathered in conversations, in readings and in my own introspection. And the hypothesis is this: the ability of many people to testify is inhibited because we have all, to a greater or lesser extent, subscribed to a kind of social peace pact and ethical consensus, from which it is not elegant to disagree. We have been educated in the idea that both in society and at academic community it is not polite to have firm convictions different from the officially accepted ones and to proclaim them as true.
The dominant morality in today's society is largely made up of ethical opportunism and scientific-technological efficiency. By opportunistic ethics I understand here the way of acting of millions of human beings who apply utilitarian criteria or sentimental intuitions to the resolution of their ethical problems, depending on the circumstances. Precisely because of the environmental saturation of this mode of behavior, we are not usually aware of the extent to which ordinary people, those who read the newspapers and sit in front of the television, are fascinated by both conditions. A great many people have become accustomed to deciding their problems on the basis of utilitarian or sentimental criteria.
It is not surprising, therefore, that people have been fascinated by FIVET and have surrendered to it. In many ways the message has been repeated to them that FIVET is a marvel that is at once the consolation of an affliction, a scientific feat and the satisfaction of preferences. Test-tube children are like a synthesis of the ideal that can be desired from science, since they are the desired result of the alliance between the research tenacity of the man of laboratory and the invincible decision of some parents to achieve an intensely desired impossible.
In this environment, the dissident, the one who severely criticizes the carefully concealed inhuman aspects of artificial insemination, runs the risk of being rejected as lacking ethical and scientific sensitivity. Indeed, whoever discovers the ethical weaknesses of IVF is suspected of having a heart insensitive to the pain of others, in this case the intolerable suffering of marital sterility, and denounces himself as a retrograde who tries uselessly to slow down the unstoppable progress of science. For one reason or another, opposing FIVET does not help to increase its popularity.
And so it is happening. Whoever opposes FIVET gains an unfavorable reputation. A widely held idea today in general society is that "for moral problems there are no right answers". These are words of Dame Mary Warnock in her book A Question of Life, so ingrained in the contemporary mindset that coming to clear-cut moral conclusions can be taken as uneducated arrogance. Certain press, many TV movies and the tabloids have brought to the conscience of many the notion that in this world only those who are guided by ethical opportunism succeed. Few are those who care to base their conduct on firm and mutually consistent moral principles, while more and more people rely on sentiment as an instrument to determine what is good or bad.
Something similar happens in the enlightened society, in the world of science. The rules and conventions of scientific society demand so much tolerance for the convictions of others that they may require indifference to one's own convictions. A rule of thumb in today's tolerant society goes something like this: "If you want to be accepted, you must refrain from declaring that the beliefs of others are less worthy or less true than your own. Whoever passionately defends any creed or any morality, consider him rude and ethnocentric. You must believe only in cultural relativism. But it is an unforgivable lack of Education to suspect and tell others that cultural relativism is a simple cultural fashion like any other".
This climate erodes the capacity, often small, of many Christians to manifest their faith. It favors the ever-widening withdrawal of the ethical tradition of natural law, of the common morality of Judeo-Christian roots, which is abandoned because of the low rate of manipulability of its principles, of the elevation of its moral demands and, above all, because of its low affinity for utilitarianism, which puts its followers at a disadvantage in their professional degree program .
It is no exaggeration to say that the scientistic Establishment exercises a policy of dissuasion against dissidence. This should not shock us. The world of Science is a tough battlefield, in which non-belligerence is not easy to maintain. The Vatican Instruction points out that "it would be illusory to claim the moral neutrality of scientific research and its applications". But this is not only a moral affirmation, in the sense that scientific and technical progress is inevitably linked to the human person and his moral values, and that it receives its moral tone from them. These same words of the Instruction serve to describe a real and everyday phenomenon: there is no such thing as a neutral science; a value-free science is not possible. In the minds of many there is a kind of nostalgia for a virginal science, one of absolute objectivity, uncontaminated by the lure of interest or ideologies. Whenever the controversy about value-free science has arisen in the scientific forum, it has been shown that in fact all scientific business is inevitably stamped with humanity, with the humanity of its protagonists, with their ambitions of knowledge and interests, of knowledge and power, of friendships and phobias, of noble emulation and murky skill.
The environmental pressure of the factors mentioned above - there are some others of a more local nature, but of no less importance internship- create an objective difficulty in expressing one's opinions. It does not take much imagination to calculate the softening effect that the threat of being labeled unrealistic, insensitive, restrictive and intemperate, or of being accused of using science selectively and even perversely, of being cruel and abusive, insincere and hypocritical, can have on the not too solid convictions of a potential dissident. Let me clarify that these are the epithets used in the article publishing house The Vatican and embryology of Nature magazine, last March 19, to qualify the Vatican document. It is evident that today it is necessary to add to firm ethical convictions a good dose of human courage and critical capacity to resist the aggressive accusations of some self-appointed gurus of official science.
Can this oppressive atmosphere dissuade us from accepting and spreading the doctrine and ethical prescriptions of the Instruction? I will devote the second part of my talk to answering this question.
2. The contribution of education to the ethical commons
We must now look for reasons to talk to everyone about the Instruction. We must do so, because the Instruction deserves it.
Frankly, without getting carried away by partisanship, what merits does the Instruction have as a bioethical document? Does its doctrine, its arguments, its conclusions place it on a par with other documents of the first rank of secular Bioethics and Deontology? Or, on the contrary, is it just a moralizing, catechetical literature sample , with no power to convince anyone who was not already convinced?
I will now offer you a assessment staff of the Instruction. Obviously, in order to be goal I do not need to divest myself of my Christian condition, which, on the other hand, I do not wish to do. Some of you will have read a brief urgent commentary that was requested of me by Il Sabato and you know my warm reception of the Instruction. But I prefer to give here some somewhat more technical arguments. By official document I am obliged to have a detailed knowledge, and to participate on occasion in the essay, of statements, codes and guidelines of Medical Ethics. It seems to me that I am familiar with this difficult and demanding literary genre and that I can judge them with a touch of professionalism.
First of all, let us look at some formal aspects. The Instruction is a clear document. It is well constructed, with a precise distribution of the subject in parts and paragraphs, correctly titled. I have not heard anyone complain that the official edition lacks an index, something that only happens with intelligently structured writings. Contributing to its clarity is the simplicity of style and lexicon, free as much as possible of technicalities, and also the brevity and the selected notes and glosses. It is a document for everyone, not only for experts. And this, which has been criticized by those who expected that the Vatican oven would produce a haute cuisine dish, is a very positive value, because in Ethics and in Medicine it is convenient to speak in a way that one can be understood.
But more interesting than the formal aspects are the contents of the Instruction. The Instruction is up to date. It tells us sample that the Church does not live in the past, but that she is at the head of other human enterprises that seek to promote human values and dignity. It reveals to us that the Church is interested in scientific progress, which she appreciates for its own sake and for its growing capacity to enrich human life. This interest is not theoretical: the Church strongly desires to contribute to this progress, assisting and guiding it in its applications to man, with the purpose that it not be used as an instrument of destruction. For those of us who dedicate ourselves to the study, the teaching and the application of Bioethics, it is encouraging to see assumed in the Vatican document some very modern concepts, born and developed in the field of Bioethics, such as those of respect, the fundamental ethical attitude of modern Medicine, informed consent or the nuances on the different meaning, technical and ethical, of research and experimentation. (In parentheses. I have a point of discrepancy with the Instruction. It accepts the term pre-embryo. I remain faithful to the longer but more precise term pre-implantation embryo. But this is not the occasion to analyze the matter). ) Political and medical law educators should consider the indications of the Instruction regarding their responsibilities in the juridical promotion of respect for the fundamental rights of the person and the cultural, ideological and political implications of artificial procreation techniques.
It is only fair to recognize that these teachings constitute a very valuable contribution to the moral treasure of the whole of humanity. But it is undoubtedly in the area of moral doctrine and anthropology that the main message of the Instruction is to be found. I know from the letter of invitation sent to me by Dr. Beretta that Bishop Caffarra spoke to you about these aspects. This dispenses me from alluding to them. But I do not want to omit a couple of points.
First, the Instruction summarizes in a very compact way the Christian doctrine on sexuality. Today's world, frightened by the AIDS epidemic and almost indifferent to the much more serious epidemic of abortion, urgently needs to wake up from the drunkenness of sexual liberation and recover a truly human sense of sexuality. The Church's insistence on recalling the anthropological elements of sexuality, her insistence on recalling the dignity of the body, the significance of its gestural language as an expression of the spiritual value of human love, is a major contribution to public health. I think that the Ministries of Health should justly send their highest award to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Or something much better: put their experts to work on advertising to convert the formidable potential educational of the Instruction into a persuasive message.
Second, when the Instruction is compared with other bioethical documents related to assisted human procreation, certain differences emerge that should be highlighted. The Instruction, as we know, has a long history. Sixty theologians and moralists and twenty-two scientists, of different nationalities and tendencies, have participated in its discussion and essay . It is, in fact, the product of an extensive group of work. Being the work of many and of interdisciplinary cooperation, it has the merit of its univocity, its internal consistency, the straightforward logic and the honesty with which it proceeds to the end. This contrasts sharply with the tortuous, ambiguous, hesitant character of other documents, such as the report Warnock, in which the impossibility of reaching a consensus is expressed not only in the individual votes, but in a seesawing between certain high ethical ideals and the demands of permissiveness or utilitarianism that creates an ethics of minimum moral effort. I believe that an interesting point of research would be the comparative analysis of the methodological, comitological and epistemological presuppositions applied in the preparation of the Instruction and of other documents emanating from secular instances.
It seems to me that a remarkable value, from a strictly bioethical point of view, is the realism that the Instruction exudes. The Instruction does not abandon itself to scientistic dreams or promises of unlimited well-being. It certainly hopes that the biomedical research will find new paths leading to solutions proportionate to the unique dignity of man. But it reminds us that when the suffering of marital sterility does not find a remedy in medicine that respects nascent life and the dignity of human procreation, then marital sterility must be taken up and turned into an opportunity for service and fulfillment staff. Today we are in great need of being told many times that, for real people, health means living with limitations and that it is utopian to aspire to a perfect state of well-being in all aspects of life.
But it is not only individuals who must be reminded of the inevitability of suffering and limitation. This is something of which society is in absolute need. If social ideals are fixed on the pursuit of happiness at all costs and on the imperative satisfaction of desires, then society as a whole is impoverished in its capacity to welcome pain and its skill capacity to accept and care for the weak is atrophied. The social implantation of this ethic of desire, more and more widespread among us thanks to the permissive legislations in force or at project, will eliminate from our midst everything that is not caused by choice or caprice, in such a way that the behavior and aspirations of people will be profoundly transformed. Let us think for a moment of a society in which everyone is brought up in a permissive environment, in which everyone is accustomed to get what he wants, when he wants it, which lives in the welfare of the welfare state, and which has as its ideals the aspiration to happiness and the satisfaction of its desires. It does not seem reasonable to expect that in such a society an Ethics of respect can develop, in which acceptance and generous submission to the weak have a privileged place.
We must seek, by scientific vocation and by Christian demand, new remedies for pain. Medical science should invest all its ingenuity and available resources in its battle against illness, deficiency and suffering, including that of marital sterility. But in that battle it must respect the demands imposed by the ethics of respect for nascent life and the dignity of human procreation. We cannot ignore the human and medical problems of sterile marriages. But our loyalty to them and to our ethical commitments must lead us to tell them that the deterioration that the institution of the family is experiencing because of reproductive technology constitutes a moral evil disproportionately great in comparison with their own suffering. Their desire to have a child of their own cannot be bought at the cost of squandering the anthropological and social values of family and marriage.
Many of the Catholic theologians who dissent from the Instruction, and not a few moderate and biemensant Catholics, are of the opinion that it is possible to legislate or, at least, to give ethical guidelines that morally validate only IVF performed within a sterile marriage and with one's own gametes. My knowledge of the documents of work and of the conference proceedings of the groups that have prepared drafts for legislation or ethical guidelines, both in public or semi-public institutions, convinces me that this is a naive pretension. I think that both ethically and sociologically it is impossible to deny others (stable couples, single women, women who lend or rent their uterus free of charge, and even lesbian couples) access to IVFET to fulfill their desire for a child or simply to conceive one, once it is accepted that it is licit for sterile couples to have recourse to the technique. And precisely because such a patent of licitness is granted to them by virtue of their firm desire to have a child of their own, there is no congruent reason to deny anyone a child if this is desired with such vehemence. The path of concessions is facilitated by the social climate of equality of rights and opportunities. Ultimately, modern states, by legalizing divorce and abortion, have shown a Degree lack of respect for nascent life and a disregard for the dignity of marriage, which leaves them defenseless in the face of the permissive legislation on assisted human reproduction that is in preparation.
It is not necessary to continue this analysis any further to conclude a point that no one will attempt to refute: the Instruction is a contribution of the first magnitude that the Church offers to the whole of humanity to shed light on one of the most significant and consequential problems facing mankind today.
3. A spirited response and manager
No one can abstain from participating in its solution. It is imperative that each one assume his share of responsibility. Responsibility that for the faithful children of the Church consists in studying, analyzing and assimilating the content of the Instruction; in persuading themselves of its high technical quality and incomparable wealth of human and moral values; in the courageous commitment to disseminate everywhere the message of the one who does not hesitate to call herself an "expert in humanity".
We cannot take talent, wrap it in a handkerchief and hide it in the ground. We have to go out into the open to negotiate this capital of moral wisdom. It may seem to some that the environment is not very receptive. We have already seen it: many people are obfuscated. Some are dumbed down by the sexology of the newsstand, which has led them to the misleading conclusion that each and everyone can lead a life of sexual glorification, of hedonistic gratification, of sensory intoxication, as full as that of the sex symbols of the moment. Others are as mesmerized by the mixture of sentiment and technological triumph of the baby-probe. Neither seem willing to listen to the demanding Christian doctrine on respect for nascent human life and the dignity of procreation.
In the face of such an apparently adverse environment, we are not going to stand still. We have to be aware that we have ahead of us a long and tiring work , one of those that put to test the moral fiber of men. We must accept the challenge set before us by the words of the Conclusion of the Instruction: "The Church wants everyone to understand the incompatibility that exists between the recognition of the dignity of the human person and contempt for life and love, between faith in the living God and the pretension of wanting to arbitrarily decide the origin and destiny of the human being".
For this lengthy task, together with prayer, we are fortunate to have the intrinsic quality of the document, and this is a substantial advantage. Let us consider a simile taken from Economics and commerce. In the market of ideas, subjected to very strong competitive tensions, governed by hard and aggressive campaigns of discredit and advertising, only the merchandise that, possessing an impeccable quality, is promoted with tenacity and talent, has possibilities of success.
It is up to us to make known, in the circumstances of work and the environment of each one, the ethical excellence and human values of the Instruction. We must negotiate this talent of doctrine that the Church has just placed in our hands. I think that all of us gathered here are convinced that the world is in need of a thorough repair; in other words, it is in desperate need of the financial aid that only the children of the Church can lend it.
We will lend that financial aid if to our doctrinal fidelity we unite a deep sympathy for everything positive and ennobling of human progress. It has fallen to us to live in a world broken by pluralism and confrontation. And in such a world, we must be at ease. We cannot resign ourselves to being marginalized from the decision-making bodies. On the contrary, we must actively participate in the discussion of bioethics, nobly striving for a place in the bodies that inspire and oversee it. I think it is suicidal to disregard the opportunities for influence and dialogue offered by the Ethics Committees of the institutions: of the Orders of Physicians, of Hospitals, of Institutes and Study Groups. If they do not exist, it will be necessary to create them, to give them life, to open them to the partnership of many. To them we should bring, in addition to a solid professional skill , something that makes us irreplaceable: a refined ethical sensitivity and, particularly, the treasure of Christian doctrine.
Our fundamental contribution to the flowing river of contemporary medical ethics, whether in conversations with colleagues, in the contributions we can offer to the deliberations of a hospital Ethics committee or to a professional Ethics Commission, consists in the clear, firm and undiluted affirmation of the Christian concept of man and of the unlimited capacity for service to the sick that springs from the charity-science alliance. This is a treasure that we owe to others. Ethical pluralism has, so to speak, its dark hours. There are times, such as the present, when criticism of the teaching of the Magisterium is on the rise, when from many corners of society values that are deeply cherished by a Christian conscience are scorned. These are times of suffering, but above all they are times when we have countless opportunities to bear witness to the richness of Christian-inspired bioethics and to refute the weakness of the dominant or more vociferous ethics.
In its most genuine interpretation, pluralism consists in giving everyone the right and the opportunity to express clearly and sincerely their moral convictions. I believe that it is more respectful and more beautiful to draw, with the tendencies that coexist in a pluralistic and truly free society, a rainbow of vigorous and precisely differentiated colors, than to reduce them to a homogeneous gray and faded mixture that results from the unnatural fusion of all of them.
We have a decisive contribution to make to that rainbow in which the opinions and beliefs of today's people are aligned and coexist. We have the responsibility to show, graciously, with grace and the gift of tongues, all the values of Christian doctrine about man. The Instruction provides us with countless opportunities to deal with two basic points of Christian anthropology: respect for the embryo and the dignity that should surround human procreation. We must tell you that in the human embryo there is the most astonishing, the most venerable, concentration of humanity per cubic micrometer that can be imagined. It is a cell and it is, at the same time, a man. We must witness this astonishing miracle, which is all the more astonishing because it is habitual. Someone has told this story very well: "The thing begins with a cell that, born from the fusion of a sperm and an oocyte, divides into two, then into four, then into eight, and so on. But at a given moment, a cell emerges that will have as its offspring the human brain. The mere existence of this cell should be one of the wonders of the world. People should spend the day calling out to each other in endless amazement to talk of nothing else but this cell. It is something unbelievable and yet it is a reality that this cell is able to find its place and do its job in every one of the billions of human embryos from all over the planet, as if that were the easiest thing in the world.... If you like surprises, here's his source... All the information needed to learn to read and write, to play the piano, to testify before senate subcommittees, to cross the street in traffic, or for that wonderfully human gesture of reaching out and leaning against a tree, is contained in that cell: all the grammar, all the syntax, all the arithmetic, all the music.... No one has the slightest idea how this is done and probably nothing else could be more intriguing. If anyone, as long as I live, should ever explain it, I would hire an airplane to write in the sky, perhaps a whole squadron, and send them into the air to draw an exclamation mark across the sky of the whole world, until I ran out of money."
This is what we should do: we should go around continually talking about how God loves each one of us as a son, that he has clothed us with his dignity, so much so that each one of us bears the image of the Creator in us. We should take the Instruction and study it, consider it at length, until its ideas penetrate us and make of us faithful, joyful witnesses, who go around the world telling the wonderful mystery that man is from the very moment of his conception, how great is the respect with which we must treat him and what is the unique and truly human framework in which he must be procreated.
But these technical values are only a humble support for the higher value of the Instruction: its fidelity to the moral tradition of the Church, its continuity with the Magisterium, its insertion into the living trunk of the Faith. The Instruction begins with an act of faith, it defines itself as a manifestation of the Church's love for man, and expresses the hope that Christ, who has compassion for our frailties, will give us with his Spirit the understanding of his precepts.