"Do not let into your homes that permissive
culture which allows everything, even the suppression of life before it
blossoms or before it declines and comes to an end naturally." (Pope
John Paul II, 1993)
"Causing death can never be considered a form
of medical treatment, even when the intention is solely to comply with
the patient's request. Rather, it runs completely counter to the
health-care profession, which is meant to be an impassioned and
unflinching affirmation of life." (Pope John Paul II, 1995)
"Human life finds itself most vulnerable when
it enters the world and when it leaves the realm of time to embark upon
eternity. The word of God frequently repeats the call to show care and
respect, above all where life is undermined by sickness and old
age." (Pope John Paul II, 1995)
"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)." (Pope John Paul II, 1995)
"[W]e 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." (Pope John Paul II, 1995)
"The rejection of life, confirmed and
ratified by legal abortion as a culture of death, is gaining ground in
today's society, with the intention of legalizing euthanasia also. Life,
which has always been welcomed and desired as a great good for humanity
as well as being the fundamental and primary value for every individual,
must be reaffirmed, assimilated and recovered today from a culture which
otherwise risks closing in on and destroying itself, or reducing life to
a consumer product for an affluent society." (Pope John Paul II,
1996)
"Even when not motivated by a selfish refusal
to be burdened with the life of someone who is suffering, euthanasia
must be called a false mercy, and indeed a disturbing 'perversion' of
mercy. True 'compassion' leads to sharing another's pain; it does not
kill the person whose suffering we cannot bear. Moreover, the act of
euthanasia appears all the more perverse if it is carried out by those,
like relatives, who are supposed to treat a family member with patience
and love, or by those, such as doctors, who by virtue of their specific
profession are supposed to care for the sick person even in the most
painful terminal stages. The choice of euthanasia becomes more serious
when it takes the form of a murder committed by others on a person who
has in no way requested it and who has never consented to it. The height
of arbitrariness and injustice is reached when certain people, such as
physicians or legislators, arrogate to themselves the power to decide
who ought to live and who ought to die. Once again we find ourselves
before the temptation of Eden: to become like God who 'knows good and
evil' (cf. Gen. 3:5). God alone has the power over life and death: 'It is
I who bring both death and life' (Deut. 32:39; cf. 2 Kg. 5:7; 1 Sam. 2:6).
But he only exercises this power in accordance with a plan of wisdom and
love. When man usurps this power, being enslaved by a foolish and
selfish way of thinking, he inevitably uses it for injustice and death.
Thus the life of the person who is weak is put into the hands of the one
who is strong; in society the sense of justice is lost, and mutual
trust, the basis of every authentic interpersonal relationship, is
undermined at its root. Quite different from this is the way of love and
true mercy, which our common humanity calls for, and upon which faith in
Christ the Redeemer, who died and rose again, sheds ever new light. The
request which arises from the human heart in the supreme confrontation
with suffering and death, especially when faced with the temptation to
give up in utter desperation, is above all a request for companionship,
sympathy and support in the time of trial. It is a plea for help to keep
on hoping when all human hopes fail." (Pope John Paul II, 1995)
"For a correct moral judgment on euthanasia,
in the first place a clear definition is required. Euthanasia in the
strict sense is understood to be an action or omission which of itself
and by intention causes death, with the purpose of eliminating all
suffering. 'Euthanasia's terms of reference, therefore, are to be found
in the intention of the will and in the methods used'. Euthanasia must
be distinguished from the decision to forego so-called 'aggressive
medical treatment', in other words, medical procedures which no longer
correspond to the real situation of the patient, either because they are
by now disproportionate to any expected results or because they impose
an excessive burden on the patient and his family. In such situations,
when death is clearly imminent and inevitable, one can in conscience
'refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and
burdensome prolongation of life, so long as the normal care due to the
sick person in similar cases is not interrupted'. Certainly there is a
moral obligation to care for oneself and to allow oneself to be cared
for, but this duty must take account of concrete circumstances. It needs
to be determined whether the means of treatment available are
objectively proportionate to the prospects for improvement. To forego
extraordinary or disproportionate means is not the equivalent of suicide
or euthanasia; it rather expresses acceptance of the human condition in
the face of death." (Pope John Paul II, 1995)
"In modern medicine, increased attention is
being given to what are called 'methods of palliative care', which seek
to make suffering more bearable in the final stages of illness and to
ensure that the patient is supported and accompanied in his or her
ordeal. Among the questions which arise in this context is that of the
licitness of using various types of painkillers and sedatives for
relieving the patient's pain when this involves the risk of shortening
life. While praise may be due to the person who voluntarily accepts
suffering by forgoing treatment with pain-killers in order to remain
fully lucid and, if a believer, to share consciously in the Lord's
Passion, such 'heroic' behavior cannot be considered the duty of
everyone. Pius XII affirmed that it is licit to relieve pain by
narcotics, even when the result is decreased consciousness and a
shortening of life, 'if no other means exist, and if, in the given
circumstances, this does not prevent the carrying out of other religious
and moral duties'. In such a case, death is not willed or sought, even
though for reasonable motives one runs the risk of it: there is simply a
desire to ease pain effectively by using the analgesics which medicine
provides. All the same, 'it is not right to deprive the dying person of
consciousness without a serious reason': as they approach death people
ought to be able to satisfy their moral and family duties, and above all
they ought to be able to prepare in a fully conscious way for their
definitive meeting with God." (Pope John Paul II, 1995)
"Therefore, by the authority which Christ
conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the
Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary
killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This
doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of
reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom. 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by
Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught
by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. The deliberate decision to
deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and
can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good
end. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and
indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it
contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity. 'Nothing and
no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being,
whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or
one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying.
Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either
for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her
care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly.
Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an
action'." (Pope John Paul II, 1995)
"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. 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. 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 practiced openly and even legally. As well as for
reasons of a misguided pity at the sight of the patient's suffering,
euthanasia is sometimes [falsely] 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." (Pope John Paul II, 1995)
"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. 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. 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? ...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." (Pope John
Paul II, 1995)
"Consequently, laws which legitimize the
direct killing of innocent human beings through abortion or euthanasia
are in complete opposition to the inviolable right to life proper to
every individual; they thus deny the equality of everyone before the
law. It might be objected that such is not the case in euthanasia, when
it is requested with full awareness by the person involved. But any
State which made such a request legitimate and authorized it to be
carried out would be legalizing a case of suicide-murder, contrary to
the fundamental principles of absolute respect for life and of the
protection of every innocent life. In this way the State contributes to
lessening respect for life and opens the door to ways of acting which
are destructive of trust in relations between people. Laws which
authorize and promote abortion and euthanasia are therefore radically
opposed not only to the good of the individual but also to the common
good; as such they are completely lacking in authentic juridical
validity. Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to
the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most
directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good.
Consequently, a civil law authorizing abortion or euthanasia ceases by
that very fact to be a true, morally binding civil law. Abortion and
euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize.
There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is
a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection.
From the very beginnings of the Church, the apostolic preaching reminded
Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public
authorities (cf. Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Pt. 2:13-14), but at the same time it
firmly warned that 'we must obey God rather than men' (Acts 5:29). In
the Old Testament, precisely in regard to threats against life, we find
a significant example of resistance to the unjust command of those in
authority. After Pharaoh ordered the killing of all newborn males, the
Hebrew midwives refused. 'They did not do as the king of Egypt commanded
them, but let the male children live' (Ex. 1:17). But the ultimate reason
for their action should be noted: 'the midwives feared God' (ibid.). It
is precisely from obedience to God - to whom alone is due that fear
which is acknowledgment of his absolute sovereignty - that the strength
and the courage to resist unjust human laws are born. It is the strength
and the courage of those prepared even to be imprisoned or put to the
sword, in the certainty that this is what makes for 'the endurance and
faith of the saints' (Rv. 13:10). In the case of an intrinsically unjust
law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore
never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in
favor of such a law, or vote for it'.... Christians, like all people of
good will, are called upon under grave obligation of conscience not to
cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil
legislation, are contrary to God's law. Indeed, from the moral
standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. Such
cooperation occurs when an action, either by its very nature or by the
form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct
participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the
immoral intention of the person committing it. This cooperation can
never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others
or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it.
Each individual in fact has moral responsibility for the acts which he
personally performs; no one can be exempted from this responsibility,
and on the basis of it everyone will be judged by God himself (cf. Rom.
2:6; 14:12). To refuse to take part in committing an injustice is not
only a moral duty; it is also a basic human right... Those who have
recourse to conscientious objection must be protected not only from
legal penalties but also from any negative effects on the legal,
disciplinary, financial and professional plane." (Pope John Paul
II, 1995)
|