Encyclical Evangelium Vitae

Foundation: John Paul II.
sourceFoundation: Holy See.
language Original: Latin.
Copyright the original Latin: No.
English translation: Holy See.
Copyright of the Spanish translation: No.
Date: 25 March 1995.
Checked on 10 July 2002.

Full text (PDF 479K).

summary

Taken from almudi.org

John Paul II calls for a mobilisation to build a new culture of life In order to facilitate a "guide" for the reading of the encyclical Evangelium vitae, we offer in a series of questions and answers some of the main points of its contents (the corresponding paragraph issue is indicated in brackets). What is the purpose of this encyclical?

What is the purpose of this encyclical?

"If the Church, at the end of the last century, could not remain silent in the face of the abuses which then existed [reference letter to Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum novarum on the workers' question], still less can she remain silent today, when, in addition to the social injustices of the past, sadly not yet overcome, in so many parts of the world even more serious injustices and oppressions are being added (...). The present encyclical (...) is therefore intended to be a precise and firm confirmation of the value of human life and its inviolable character, and at the same time a pressing appeal to each and every one in the name of God" (5).

Oppression of the weakest

What is the most worrying aspect of the current threat to life?

"Its most subversive and disturbing aspect is the increasingly frequent tendency to interpret these crimes against life as legitimate expressions of individual freedom, which must be recognised and protected as true and proper rights (...). Just at a time when the inviolable rights of the person are solemnly proclaimed and the value of life is publicly affirmed, the right to life itself is practically denied and violated, particularly at the most emblematic moments of life, such as birth and death" (18).

Where are the roots of this contradiction?

"The origin of the contradiction between the solemn affirmation of human rights and their tragic negation on internship lies in a concept of freedom that exalts the individual in an absolute way (...) [and] ends up being the freedom of the 'strongest' against the weak". (19).

"With this conception of freedom, social coexistence deteriorates profoundly. If the promotion of the self is understood in terms of absolute autonomy, it inevitably leads to the negation of the other, considered as an enemy to be defended against (...). Thus, all reference letter to common values and to an absolute truth for all disappears; social life enters the quicksand of absolute relativism. Everything is then negotiable, everything is negotiable: even the first of the fundamental rights, the right to life" (20).

"In the search for the deepest roots of the struggle between the 'culture of life' and the 'culture of death' (...) it is necessary to get to the heart of the drama experienced by contemporary man: the eclipse of the meaning of God and of man (...); losing the meaning of God, one tends to lose the meaning of man" (21).

Civil law and moral law

What happens when these criteria are translated into democratically approved laws?

"The 'right' ceases to be such because it is no longer solidly based on the inviolable dignity of the person, but is subject to the will of the strongest. In this way, democracy, despite its rules, goes down a path of fundamental totalitarianism (...). In reality we are only faced with a tragic appearance of legality, where the democratic ideal, which is truly such when it recognises and protects the dignity of every human being, is betrayed at its very heart instructions". (20)

"Democracy cannot be mythologised as a substitute for morality or a panacea for immorality. Fundamentally, it is an 'ordering' and, as such, an instrument and not an end. Its 'moral' character is not automatic, but (...) depends on the morality of the ends it pursues and the means it uses (...). The value of democracy stands or falls with the values it embodies and promotes: fundamental and indispensable are certainly the dignity of every human person, respect for his inviolable and inalienable rights, as well as considering the 'common good' as the end and regulating criterion of political life" (70).

"Laws of this subject [legitimising abortion or euthanasia] not only do not create any obligation of conscience, but, on the contrary, they establish a serious and precise obligation to oppose them by means of conscientious objection" (73).

How should a Catholic parliamentarian behave in a country where abortion is recognised by law?

"When it is not possible to avoid or completely repeal an abortion law, a parliamentarian, whose absolute civil service examination staff opposition to abortion is clear and notorious to all, can licitly offer his support to proposals aimed at limiting the damage of this law and thus diminishing its negative effects in the field of culture and public morality. In fact, by acting in this way, one does not lend an illicit partnership to an unjust law: on the contrary, one makes a legitimate and obligatory attempt to limit its iniquitous aspects" (73).

"If laws are not the only instrument for defending human life, they nevertheless play a very important and sometimes decisive role in promoting a mentality and customs (...). It is not enough to eliminate iniquitous laws. It is necessary to eliminate the causes that favour attacks on life, ensuring above all the support due to the family and to motherhood: family policy must be the axis and driving force of all social policies" (90).

Doctrinal authority

What formula, in particular, does the Pontiff use in the encyclical to ratify the doctrine of respect for life?

"With the authority conferred by Christ on Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary elimination of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, founded on that unwritten law which every man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart, is corroborated by Sacred Scripture, handed down by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium" (57). (57) [Two other specific declarations are added later: one on abortion and the other on euthanasia].

Self-defence and the death penalty

And when the human being is not "innocent"?

"Undoubtedly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defence (...). Unfortunately, it happens that the need to prevent the aggressor from causing harm sometimes leads to his elimination. In this hypothesis, the deadly result must be attributed to the aggressor who has exposed himself by his action" (55).

Can the death penalty be considered a "legitimate defence" of society?

"The public authority must repair the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate expiation of the crime, as a condition for being admitted to the exercise of his own freedom. In this way, the authority also achieves the goal of preserving public order and the security of the people, but not without offering the offender himself a stimulus and a financial aid to correct and amend himself.

"It is clear that, precisely in order to achieve all these aims, the measure and quality of the punishment must be carefully considered and decided upon, without going to the extreme measure of eliminating the offender except in cases of absolute necessity, i.e. when the defence of society is not otherwise possible. Today, however, thanks to the increasingly appropriate organisation of the penal institution, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent" (56).

"If such great attention is paid to respect for all life, including that of the accused and that of the unjust aggressor, the commandment 'thou shalt not kill' has an absolute value when it refers to the innocent person. All the more so when it concerns a weak and defenceless human being" (57).

Abortion: a two-thousand-year-old conviction

Are there no exceptions to the condemnation of abortion?

"The texts of the Sacred Scripture, which never speak of voluntary abortion and therefore do not contain direct and specific condemnations of it, present the human being in the womb in such a way that they logically demand that the divine commandment 'thou shalt not kill' (...) be extended to this case as well.

"Throughout its two thousand year history, this same doctrine has been constantly taught by the Fathers of the Church, by her Pastors and Doctors. Even the scientific and philosophical discussions on the precise moment of the infusion of the spiritual soul have never provoked the slightest doubt about the moral condemnation of abortion" (61).

"Faced with such unanimity in the doctrinal and disciplinary tradition of the Church, Paul VI was able to declare that this teaching had not changed and was immutable. Therefore, with the authority which Christ conferred on Peter and his Successors, in communion with all the Bishops - who on various occasions have condemned abortion and (...), although dispersed throughout the world, have unanimously agreed on this doctrine - I declare that direct abortion, that is, whether intended as an end or as a means, is always a grave moral disorder, inasmuch as it is the deliberate elimination of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based on the natural law and on the written Word of God; it is handed down by the tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary universal Magisterium" (62).

Respect for the human embryo

However, the perception of the seriousness of abortion has progressively weakened in the consciousness of many.

"The acceptance of abortion in mentality, in customs and in the law itself is a clear sign of a very dangerous crisis of the moral sense, which is increasingly incapable of distinguishing between good and evil, even when the fundamental right to life is at stake. Faced with such a serious status , more than ever we need the courage to face the truth and to call things by their name (...). Precisely in the case of abortion, we can see the spread of an ambiguous terminology , such as 'interruption of pregnancy', which tends to hide its true nature and attenuate its seriousness in public opinion. Perhaps this very linguistic phenomenon is a symptom of a malaise in people's consciences. But no words can change the reality of things: procured abortion is the deliberate and direct elimination, however it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of its existence, which goes from conception to birth" (58).

Is the embryo a human being?

"From the moment the egg is fertilised, a new life is inaugurated which is neither that of the father nor that of the mother, but that of a new human being who develops by himself. It will never become human if it has not been human since then. The modern Genetics gives a precious confirmation to this long-standing evidence (...).

"Something so important is at stake that, from the point of view of moral obligation, the mere probability of being faced with a person would suffice to justify the most emphatic prohibition of any intervention aimed at eliminating a human embryo (...). The Church has always taught, and continues to teach, that the fruit of human generation, from the first moment of its existence, must be guaranteed the unconditional respect which is morally due to the human being in his totality and unity, bodily and spiritual: the human being must be respected and treated as a person from the moment of his conception" (60).

Motherhood in difficult situations

And what about the mother who undergoes an abortion because of a difficult status ?

"It is true that on many occasions, the choice of abortion has a dramatic and painful character for the mother, insofar as the decision to get rid of the fruit of conception is not taken for purely selfish reasons or for reasons of convenience (...). Sometimes the fear for the child to be born is so great that it is thought that it would be better for the child not to be born. However, these and similar reasons, although grave and dramatic, can never justify the deliberate elimination of an innocent human being" (58).

"These circumstances may even significantly attenuate the subjective responsibility and consequent culpability of those who make these per se morally wrong choices" (18).

What does the Pope say to women who have had abortions?

"The Church knows how many conditioning factors may have influenced your decision, and has no doubt that in many cases it was a painful and even dramatic decision. The wound has probably not yet healed within you. It is true that what happened was and still is deeply unjust. However, do not be discouraged and do not give up hope. Rather, understand what happened and interpret it in its truth. If you have not yet done so, open yourselves with humility and trust to repentance: the Father of all mercy is waiting to offer you his forgiveness and peace in the sacrament of Reconciliation. You will realise that nothing is lost and you will be able to ask forgiveness also of your son who now lives in the Lord. Helped by committee and the closeness of friendly and competent people, you will be able to be with your painful witness among the most eloquent defenders of the right of all to life" (99).

Experiments on human embryos

How can experiments on human embryos, sometimes carried out to advance medicine, be valued?

"The moral evaluation of abortion must also apply to recent forms of intervention on human embryos which, while seeking ends that are in themselves legitimate, inevitably lead to their destruction (...). The use of human embryos or foetuses as objects of experimentation constitutes a crime in consideration of their dignity as human beings, who are entitled to the same respect due to the child already born and to every person.

"The same moral condemnation also applies to procedure which uses still-living human embryos and foetuses - sometimes 'produced' expressly for this purpose by in vitro fertilisation - either as 'biological material' to be used or as a source of organs or tissues to be transplanted for the treatment of certain diseases. Indeed, the elimination of innocent human creatures, even if it benefits others, is an absolutely unacceptable act" (63).

Euthanasia, false mercy

Some present euthanasia as an act of love: helping people to die in order to avoid needless suffering.

"For a correct moral judgement on euthanasia, it is first of all necessary to define it clearly. Euthanasia in the true and proper sense is to be understood as an action or omission which by its nature and intention causes death, in order to eliminate any pain (...).

"From this must be distinguished the decision to renounce so-called therapeutic overkill, i.e. certain medical interventions that are no longer appropriate for the patient's real status (...). Of course, there is a moral obligation to cure oneself and to be cured, but this obligation must be assessed according to the specific situation, i.e. it must be examined whether the therapeutic means available are objectively proportionate to the prospects of improvement. The Withdrawal to extraordinary or disproportionate means does not amount to suicide or euthanasia; it expresses rather the acceptance of the human condition in the face of death (...).

"Having made these distinctions, from agreement with the Magisterium of my Predecessors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that euthanasia is a grave violation of the Law of God, insofar as it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable elimination of a human person" (65).

"Euthanasia, even if it is not motivated by the selfish refusal to become position of the suffering person's existence, must be considered as a false mercy, indeed, as a worrying 'perversion' of it. Indeed, true 'compassion' makes us sympathetic to the pain of others, and does not eliminate the person whose suffering cannot be endured" (66).

A grand pro-life strategy

Despite the scenario described above, is the Pope hopeful for the victory of the "culture of life"?

"There is no lack of signs anticipating such a victory in our societies and cultures (...). Therefore, a one-sided image would be given, which could lead to sterile discouragement, if positive signs are not presented together with the denunciation of threats to life (...).

"Unfortunately, these positive signs often find it difficult to manifest themselves and to be recognised, perhaps also because they do not find adequate attention in the media of speech " (26).

"The defence and promotion of life is no one's monopoly, but the duty and responsibility of all. The challenge before us, on the threshold of the third millennium, is an arduous one. Only the concerted cooperation of all those who believe in the value of life can prevent a defeat of civilisation with unforeseeable consequences" (91).

"There is an urgent need for a general mobilisation of consciences and a common ethical effort to set up internship a great strategy in favour of life. Together we must build a new culture of life" (95).

"The Gospel of life is not exclusively for believers: it is for everyone. The topic of life and its defence and promotion is not the prerogative of Christians alone" (101).