"What have you done?" (Genesis 4:10):
THE ECLIPSE OF THE VALUE OF LIFE
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.
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.
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.
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!
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".
How did such a situation come about? Many different factors have to
be taken into account. 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. 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. There are situations of acute poverty,
anxiety or frustration in which the struggle to make ends meet, the
presence of unbearable pain, 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.
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.
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 these can sometimes mitigate the subjective
responsibility of individuals, it is no less true that we are
confronted by an even larger reality, which can be described as a
veritable . This reality is characterized by the
emergence of a culture which denies solidarity and in many cases
takes the form of a veritable . This culture is
actively fostered by powerful cultural, economic and political
currents which encourage an idea of society excessively concerned
with efficiency. 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 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.
PROMOTION OF GLOBAL ABORTION
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.
PROMOTION OF GLOBAL CONTRACEPTION & CONTRACEPTIVE MENTALITY
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".
HEDONISM & THE LINK BETWEEN CONTRACEPTION & ABORTION
But despite their differences of nature and moral gravity,
contraception and abortion are often closely connected, as fruits of
the same tree. It is true that in many cases contraception and even
abortion are practised under the pressure of real-life difficulties,
which nonetheless can never exonerate from striving to observe God's
law fully. 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.
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.
IMMORAL REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES
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.
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.
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.
MEANING OF SUFFERING — ANSWER TO EUTHANASIA
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.
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 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.
THE POPULATION ALIBI AND ITS CONSEQUENCES
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.
CONTRACEPTION-STERILIZATION-ABORTION "PANACEA"
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".
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.
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.
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.
"Am I my brother's keeper?" (Genesis 4:9):
A PERVERSE IDEA OF FREEDOM
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.
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.
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.
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.
PERVERSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS LEADS TO ABUSE
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?
19. What are the roots of this remarkable contradiction?
"MIGHT IS RIGHT"
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.
MISCONCEPTION OF FREEDOM
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.
RESPECT FOR RIGHTS DEMANDED BY OUR SOCIAL NATURE
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.
HUMAN FREEDOM IS NOT AUTONOMOUS
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.
DISTORTION OF FREEDOM = DISTORTION OF LIFE
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.
INSTITUTIONALIZED DISTORTION IN THE POLITICAL ARENA
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. 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.
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).
"And from your face I shall be hidden" (Genesis 4:14):
THE ECLIPSE OF THE SENSE OF GOD AND OF MAN
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.
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).
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.
LIFE AWAY FROM GOD IS BUSY WITH ESCAPISM
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".
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.
THEORETICAL FAITH MIXED WITH PRACTICAL ATHEISM
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.
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.
HEDONISM: WITHOUT GOD, SUFFERING IS MEANINGLESS
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.
MATERIALISM: AWAY FROM GOD, THE HUMAN BODY IS DOWNGRADED
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.
DEPERSONALIZATION: WITHOUT GOD, PERSONHOOD IS INCOMPREHENSIBLE
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.
THE BATTLEFIELD OF CONSCIENCE
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.
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.
|