Catechism on Family and Life Issues Celebrating 40 years of Humanae Vitae

“We are called to seek and embrace the truth. In ethical matters, this demands a willingness to understand the natural law and the moral code that is derived from it. When Jesus said “I am the truth” he was affirming the fact that this truth is of vital importance to each one of us. If we are seriously to come to grips with truth, then we need to find a way of dialoguing with one another which is devoid of any ambiguity. That is why words and the meaning of words matter.” (George Cardinal Pell, Endorsement of Lexicon).

Introduction

Forty years ago, on July 29, 1968 Pope Paul VI issued the Humanae Vitae against the expectations of the Secular World and even some Catholic circles. His words have proven prophetic. Since then the Church has waged a continuous battle in defense of the family and human life against the Population Control Movement’s racist agenda to pursue universal access to contraceptives and abortion. These enemies are determined to transform our laws and institutions into instruments for attacking the family and the sacredness of human life through a manipulative political process. Lest the Church people are caught unaware when a double-speak language cleverly used with words sweet to the ears but hiding a dangerous intent, the Pontifical Council of the Family published the Lexicon.[1] These essays written by experts on various issues of Family and Life to explain beyond ambiguity the meaning of confusing terms and jargon. This Catechism is therefore both a review of Humanae Vitae and a clarification of selected terms relevant to the current political issues the country is now facing.

What is the difference between Procreation and Reproduction?

Reproduction strictly refers to the biological reality implying that man is no different from animals. Procreation on the other hand is the proper term for human generation since it refers to the appearance of a new person and points to collaboration of parents with God as the ultimate source of this new life.

What is Responsible Parenthood?

Due to the profound link between the conjugal bond and the gift of life Humanae Vitae emphasizes the vocation of married couples to be parents and insists on openness to life. It is neutral concerning family size. Responsible parenthood refers to the decision to procreate or not to procreate signifying the following:

a) Exclusion of the use of contraceptives for every fertile conjugal act

b) Knowledge, primarily on the wife’s part of her own cycle of fertility/infertility;

c) In the case of an ethically justified decision not to procreate, abstinence from conjugal relations during the wife’s fertile period and the restriction of conjugal relations to the wife’s infertile period.

d) Exercising control over one’s sexual impulse to render it truly and exclusively expressive of conjugal love and the self-giving of persons. This decision to procreate or not to procreate is just (it is responsible) when two things are taken into account:

a) That the parents have the necessary and sufficient resources to secure a dignified life for their future child (including basic education);

b) That there are no grave considerations of health on the part of the spouses, especially the wife;

In the UN language Responsible Parenthood is the will, ability and commitment of parents to respond to the needs and aspirations of the family and children more particularly through family planning. Since family planning is understood as enabling people who wish to limit the size of families the term Responsible Parenthood is associated to family size limitation.

Why is contraception morally wrong?

Contraception is any action taken before, during or immediately after the conjugal act which is aimed at impeding the conception which the conjugal act itself is capable of. Contraception therefore separates the unitive and procreative aspects of the conjugal act. Conjugal sexuality by its very nature is an expression-realization of the total gift of self. In contraception the conjugal sexual act excludes from the gift of one’s person the gift of the capacity to become father/mother (it is the person that is fertile, not the body). Contraception makes the conjugal sexual act a lie.

Why is natural methods of birth control not contraception?

These natural methods simply enable the wife to ascertain when she is fertile and when she is infertile—scientific information placed at the service of either a procreative decision or a non procreative decision by the spouses.

What is Reproductive Health?

The UN defines Reproductive Health as the state of physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes. This implies that people are able to have a satisfying and safe sex life, that they have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so, provided that these are not against the law. This further implies that women and men are afforded equal status in matters related to sexual relations and reproduction. (Cairo, Program of Action)

Strictly speaking reproductive health focuses on the biological dimension—when all the organic components of the reproductive apparatus are present and whole. It is therefore ridiculous to attribute “mental” and “social” dimensions to what is a purely biological reality. The surreptitious addition of these terms is connected with the stated aim of reproductive health—to have a satisfying and safe sex life. If having a satisfying sex life results in an unwanted pregnancy, the mental anguish this on the woman causes will negatively affect her mental and social well-being unless one has access to contraception and abortion. This is the convoluted reasoning behind the UN’s insistence that Reproductive Health necessarily presupposes access to artificial contraception and abortion. Thus in the Church judgment reproductive health is an ambiguous term. Despite of all avowals that abortion is illicit the inclusion of reproductive health in any law provides a backdoor for eventually legalizing abortion.

What is Reproductive Rights?

The term Reproductive Rights (RR) goes very often with Sexual Rights (SR) producing Sexual Reproductive Rights (SRR). Defined in terms of power and resources the latter refers to the power to have access to the necessary information and make sound decisions about fertility, procreation and child care, gynecological health and sexual activity, as well as the resources to proceed in a safe and efficient manner.

There are no international texts on human rights that mentions reproductive rights. The most fundamental document on human rights in the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights. The Population Control Establishment claims that Article 2 of the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights introduces the generic “right to have rights” rather than providing a list of concrete rights. It is further claimed that the content of these rights can be determined through democratic activity of nations. Subsequent UN Conferences—Cairo, Beijing, etc. reinforced the idea that the right to make decisions about reproduction and the right of access to health services were fundamental human rights. Both men and women should have equal access to health servic es including those related to family planning, the right to decide family size as well as spacing of children.

The erroneous ideology that defines a law making process based on the will of the majority is Legal Positivism can lead to unjust laws because the will of the majority can be manipulated by interest groups. Society runs the risk of enacting into law something that is against the natural law—what is wrong becomes right. Abortion legalized through a referendum does not cease to be wrong just because of a majority vote. This approach has permitted the UN to use its formidable financial resources in the advocacy process to provide universal access to contraception and legal abortion in line with its racist pursuit of fertility decline in third world countries.

What are Sexual Rights?

Sexual Rights is difficult to define and is best illustrated by the list of rights that tend to be included in this category. The 1996 International Planned Parenthood Declaration of Sexual and Reproductive Rights include among others (there are eleven of them) the following:

· The right to exercise and enjoy sexual independence, according to one’s preferences as well as the right to due legal protection;

· Pleasant and recreational sex, independent of reproduction

· Appropriate knowledge and information sex and reproduction.

· Freedom from fear, embarassment, guilt and other imposed beliefs that inhibit the sexuality of a person or diminish his/her relationship.

Underlying this view is the radical separation of sexuality, procreation and the connection between men and women. Pleasure is identified as the ultimate goal of sexuality and procreation is reduced as a function of the health care systems. Men and women relate in temporary and modifiable agreements.

Men and women are persons before all else, and for this reason sexual behavior cannot be used only for pleasure for this would mean using a person as a source of pleasure. Moverover since God specifically designed that the conjugal bond be profoundly linked with the gift of life sexuality can be exercised only in the context of married life. The exercise of rights gives rise to corresponding duties. Sexuality has to be curbed within the limits of marriage for the sake of wife and children.

What is Abortion Rights

The right to abortion was defined and acknowledged for the first time in the ruling of the US Supreme Court in the Roe vs. Wade case—giving women the free choice to interrupt pregnancy because the right to do so is a fundamental element of the right to privacy. Previously abortion was allowed in some cases as an exception to the norm on the defense of human life. After this ruling the law ceased to be interested in the conceived child as a victim, and shiftedits interest to the mother.

The right to abortion is called many names—interrupted pregnancy, menstrual regulation, etc. mainly out of a desire to hide the truth about the nature of abortion itself. But the truth is brutally simple—it always concerns the killing of the conceived child and the destryong of his/her life.

What is Reproductive Education

In the language of the UN Reproductive Education is the process of acquiring complete, accurate and relevant information on all matters relating to the reproductive system, its functions and processes and human sexuality; and forming attitudes and beliefs about sex, sexual identity, interpersonal relationships, affection, intimacy and gender roles. This also includes critically evaluating and discussing the moral, religious, social and cultural dimensions of related sensitive issues such as contraception and abortion.

Thisdefinition shows the propagandizing aims of Reproductive Education. It is meant to overhaul society’s values, attitudes and beliefs regarding sexuality and procreation. It is meant to make young people see the religious and moral values taught by their parents as myths on sex and sexuality deserving of ridicule and disdain.

Though countries in the West do not have any population control programs their sub-replacement fertility is so low that they now run the risk of population implosion. This was a result of a drastic change in sexual morality due to sustained sex education programs. The Sex Education Program has been in place in the Philippines since the 1970’s. The current 3rd edition is now entitled Reproductive Health and is much more explicit on sexual techniques rather than values education. These modules were patterned after the Sex Information and Education Modules of the U.S. ( SIECUS) originally developed by Mary Calderone and Alfred Kinsey of Kinsey Institute implemented in the American schools in the 1960’s. In plain language its content is pornographic; Kinsey Institute supports materials like Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler based on the research work of Eichel and Judith Reisman.

It assumes that young people are also subject of sexual rights and therefore they have a right to value free information about human sexuality, contraception, etc. Ultimately the objective is to encourage early sexual activity among the adolescents and create a demand for contraceptives and abortion among the young.

Parents have a duty to teach their children how to live the virtue of chastity. Giving the age-appropriate biological information hand in hand with the moral significance of sexuality parents educate their children live their vocation to love responsibly.

What is Safe Sex?

The term “Safe Sex” created in California and New York—the hotbed of HIV/AIDS—designates the condom as the best method against contamination by HIV during sexual activity. The expression refers to all precautionary measures taken to diminish the risk of transmitting or acquiring sexually transmitted disease.

The media hype that has promoted use of condoms as safe sex ignores the scientific findings that shows that the male sperm can comfortably pass through the pores of the condom and the HIV virus which is even smaller, has an even easier passage. The facts also show that in countries such as Thailand, where condom usage is widespread, the incidence of HIV infection is reaching epidemic proportions.

What is Safe Motherhood?

The concept of “Safe Motherhood” is actually loaded with unmentioned elements making it a dangerous expression. The idea is that there is no Safe Motherhood without granting the mother the right to abort freely. This conclusion is arrived after a manipulation of statistics on maternal mortality rates to suggest that much of it is a result from illegal abortions performed in “unsafe conditions”. This is meant to lead to the conclusion that in order to reduce the risks inherent in motherhood it is necessary to liberalize abortion. The aim is of course to incite authorities to liberalize abortion.

Restoring the exact meaning to “Safe Motherhood” means defining it as the set of health requirements for pregnant mothers that would give women the ability to have a safe and healthy pregnancy and delivery. Safe motherhood is therefore a desirable goal and providing better treatments and equipment adapted for and available to an ever larger number of mothers all over the world is something everyon should work for.

What is Informed Consent?

The relationship between doctors and patients should be an interpersonal relationship and full of trust. In a society which has at its disposal all the resources this ought to imply that patients should be well-informed regarding the numerous side effects of contraceptive drugs, the long term consequences of procedures performed on them, etc. But the history of family planning is fraught with instances where patients do not receive complete information regarding the side effects of contraceptives:

• —Side-effects of the Pill:Premature hypertension, Heart Attacks and Strokes, Embolism; Carcinogenic (breast, cervical, liver cancer); leg cramps, nausea, infertility, bloatedness.
• The pill and the IUD are abortifacient;
• The condom has a high failure rate in preventing pregnancy, STD and HIV AIDS
• Tubal ligation: high risk for ectopic pregnancy
• Vasectomy: auto-immune response disorders
  

In some cases patients are even made to undergo, without their knowledge, interventions that mutilate them—for example surgical sterilization—and which are often irreversible.

Informed consent is a principle of medical ethics. The dignity of the patient implies a right to decide autonomously whether to accept or reject what is done to him both as to diagnosis and treatment. “Informed consent” consists is explaining to an alert and mentally competent patient the nature of the illness, the relation between its effects and the risks and benefits of the recommended procedures in order to obtain the patient’s approval or rejection of those procedures.

• The presentation of information should be understandable rather than cursory.
  
• The patient’s cooperation should be obtained without coercion and without the doctor taking advantage of his scientific prestige.
  
• The doctor should be attentive to the patient’s attitude (if she is well-reasoned, compatible with the principles of his life, that the decision is voluntary and free, not based on ignorance and that the patient is mentally competent to make the decision.

What is Gender and Sex?

Sex refers to nature and implies two possibilities—man and women; gender comes from the field of linguistics and includes three varieties—masculine, feminine and neuter. According to this radical gender feminist view masculinity and feminity are not determined by sex but by culture, a product of socially constructed roles and stereotypes that each society assigns to the sexes. This view capitalizes on the fact that in the past exaggerations led to discriminations and injustices for many women. Women were considered inferior and excluded from public decision, higher education and economic opportunities.

Breaking away from the natural concept of masculinity and femininity radical feminists assert the existence of four, five or six genders: male heterosexuals, female heterosexuals, homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality and trans-gendered. Any sexuality is permissible; heterosexuality would just be one of the possible sexual practices—its procreative role does not make it preferable. To achieve universal acceptance of these ideas the strategy is to achieve gradual cultural change through the ”deconstruction” of society beginning with the family and the education of children. Ambiguous language is used ot make new ethical presuppositions seem reasonable.

Experts tell us in the human person sex and gender—the biological principle and the cultural expression are not identical. This is particularly clear when looking at the three aspects of the process by which they are normally and harmoniously woven

together.

• “Biological sex” is the bodily aspect of the human person determined at the moment of fertilization by the XX chromosomes in the female and the XY chromosomes in the male. Medical science shows how different each cell of the female body is from each cell of the male body, including structural and functional differences between the male and female brain.

• “Psychological sex” refers to the human psychic experiences as man and woman—consisting in the consciousness of belonging to a determined sex. This is profoundly affected by education and environment.

• “Sociological sex” is the sex assigned to a person from the moment of birth. It is expressed as it is perceived in the surrounding persons. It signifies a specific way of acting of a man or a woman. It refers to functions, roles and stereotypes which are assigned in each society to diverse groups of persons.

These three aspects are not isolated from each other. They must be integrated into a wider process in the formation of one’s own identity. Persons progressively acquires, during infancy and adolescence, a consciousness of “being oneself”. They discover their sexual identity and in it each time more profoundly the sexual dimension of their own being. Coming to realize bio-psychological factors of one’s own sex and the difference regarding the other sex, they gradually acquire a gender identity and discover the psycho-social and cultural factors of the role that men and women have it society.

Intersexual states are anomalies with various clinical characteristics that tend to occur at a very early embryonic stage of human development. They are defined by a contradiction of one or more of the criteria of sexual definition. Transexual persons have a pathology in some of the links of the biological chain leading to sexual differentiation. They should not be used as propaganda to obtain the “deconstruction” of the foundations of the family and society. They deserve respect and appropriate medical treatment.

What is Gender Equality?

Capitalizing on the discrimination and exclusion of women from public decision making and from access to education radical feminists aim at gender equality—the elimination of the differences between male and female. Since they claim that gender is merely a social construct they attribute the discrimination against women to the physical difference between male and female. This is what makes reproductive health and full access to contraceptives and abortion a very important in the feminist agenda.

Since the human person is either man or woman “in the unity of body and soul”, masculinity and femininity extends to all areas of his/her being: from the profound significance of the physical differences of man and woman and their influence in corporeal love, to the psychic differences between both and their different ways of manifesting their relationship with God. It is not possible to determine with scientific exactness what is typically masculine or typically feminine. But men and women experience the world in different ways, carry out their tasks differently, sit down, plan and react differently, and each of the latter has a solid foundation in the biological constitution of both man and woman. Men and women have the same human nature, but theyhave it in different ways. In a certain sense they complement each other; they mutually need each other to fully develop their humanity. In the husband-wife relationship, the “submission” is not unilateral, but reciprocal.

It is a biological fact that only a woman can be a mother and only a man can be a father though to be a woman or a man does not consist solely in being mother or father. . God did not create men and women so that we can engender new human beings. Man created in the image and likeness of God, is capable of engendering so as to express and perpetuate that divine image reflected in his sexual condition.

What is Gender Equity?

Radical feminist make an issue out of the fact that women have been excluded from economic life and advocate women empowerment.

It is evident that many injustices against women have existed historically and some continue to exist in the world. This long list of different kinds of discrimination has no biological foundation, but rather cultural roots, and these must be eradicated. Social functions cannot be considered as irremediably united to genetics or biology. It is desirable that women assume new roles that are in harmony with their dignity. We have to reject the fixed biological notion that all roles and relationships between both sexes are fixed in one static model. The incorporation of women in the labor market is an advance that certainly creates new challenges for both sexes.

The term gender correctly describes the cultural aspects that surround the construction of functions of men and women in society. Yet not all of these functions are things that are biologically constructed. Some have larger biological roots. There one can appreciate the presence of a certain diversity of roles is in no way bad for women, since that diversity is an expression of what is specifically masculine or feminine. More than a privilege or a discrimination sex is always an opportunity for one’s personal development. Hence we should all aim to promote the welfare of women not only outside the home but within it as well. While it is certain that women are not only wives and mothers, many are or want to be, so one must create the possiblities for them to achieve these desires in a dignified manner. Women who have an active external professional life cannot be the sole model, the only ideal for feminine independence.

---

[1] “Lexicon, Ambiguous and debatable terms regarding family life and ethical questions” published by the Pontifical Council of the Family in Italian. The English version was published by Human Life International in 2006.

Evangelium Vitae #68-74: "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29): civil law and the moral law

"We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29): civil law and the moral law

68. One of the specific characteristics of present-day attacks on human life-as has already been said several times-consists in the trend to demand a legal justification for them, as if they were rights which the State, at least under certain conditions, must acknowledge as belonging to citizens. Consequently, there is a tendency to claim that it should be possible to exercise these rights with the safe and free assistance of doctors and medical personnel.

It is often claimed that the life of an unborn child or a seriously disabled person is only a relative good: according to a proportionalist approach, or one of sheer calculation, this good should be compared with and balanced against other goods. It is even maintained that only someone present and personally involved in a concrete situation can correctly judge the goods at stake: consequently, only that person would be able to decide on the morality of his choice. The State therefore, in the interest of civil coexistence and social harmony, should respect this choice, even to the point of permitting abortion and euthanasia.

At other times, it is claimed that civil law cannot demand that all citizens should live according to moral standards higher than what all citizens themselves acknowledge and share. Hence the law should always express the opinion and will of the majority of citizens and recognize that they have, at least in certain extreme cases, the right even to abortion and euthanasia. Moreover the prohibition and the punishment of abortion and euthanasia in these cases would inevitably lead-so it is said-to an increase of illegal practices: and these would not be subject to necessary control by society and would be carried out in a medically unsafe way. The question is also raised whether supporting a law which in practice cannot be enforced would not ultimately undermine the authority of all laws.

Finally, the more radical views go so far as to maintain that in a modern and pluralistic society people should be allowed complete freedom to dispose of their own lives as well as of the lives of the unborn: it is asserted that it is not the task of the law to choose between different moral opinions, and still less can the law claim to impose one particular opinion to the detriment of others.

69. In any case, in the democratic culture of our time it is commonly held that the legal system of any society should limit itself to taking account of and accepting the convictions of the majority. It should therefore be based solely upon what the majority itself considers moral and actually practises. Furthermore, if it is believed that an objective truth shared by all is de facto unattainable, then respect for the freedom of the citizens-who in a democratic system are considered the true rulers-would require that on the legislative level the autonomy of individual consciences be acknowledged. Consequently, when establishing those norms which are absolutely necessary for social coexistence, the only determining factor should be the will of the majority, whatever this may be. Hence every politician, in his or her activity, should clearly separate the realm of private conscience from that of public conduct.

As a result we have what appear to be two diametrically opposed tendencies. On the one hand, individuals claim for themselves in the moral sphere the most complete freedom of choice and demand that the State should not adopt or impose any ethical position but limit itself to guaranteeing maximum space for the freedom of each individual, with the sole limitation of not infringing on the freedom and rights of any other citizen. On the other hand, it is held that, in the exercise of public and professional duties, respect for other people's freedom of choice requires that each one should set aside his or her own convictions in order to satisfy every demand of the citizens which is recognized and guaranteed by law; in carrying out one's duties the only moral criterion should be what is laid down by the law itself. Individual responsibility is thus turned over to the civil law, with a renouncing of personal conscience, at least in the public sphere.

70. At the basis of all these tendencies lies the ethical relativism which characterizes much of present-day culture. There are those who consider such relativism an essential condition of democ- racy, inasmuch as it alone is held to guarantee tolerance, mutual respect between people and acceptance of the decisions of the majority, whereas moral norms considered to be objective and binding are held to lead to authoritarianism and intolerance.

But it is precisely the issue of respect for life which shows what misunderstandings and contradictions, accompanied by terrible practical consequences, are concealed in this position.

It is true that history has known cases where crimes have been committed in the name of "truth". But equally grave crimes and radical denials of freedom have also been committed and are still being committed in the name of "ethical relativism". When a parliamentary or social majority decrees that it is legal, at least under certain conditions, to kill unborn human life, is it not really making a "tyrannical" decision with regard to the weakest and most defenceless of human beings? Everyone's conscience rightly rejects those crimes against humanity of which our century has had such sad experience. But would these crimes cease to be crimes if, instead of being committed by unscrupulous tyrants, they were legitimated by popular consensus?

Democracy cannot be idolized to the point of making it a substitute for morality or a panacea for immorality. Fundamentally, democracy is a "system" and as such is a means and not an end. Its "moral" value is not automatic, but depends on conformity to the moral law to which it, like every other form of human behaviour, must be subject: in other words, its morality depends on the morality of the ends which it pursues and of the means which it employs. If today we see an almost universal consensus with regard to the value of democracy, this is to be considered a positive "sign of the times", as the Church's Magisterium has frequently noted. ⁸⁸ But the value of democracy stands or falls with the values which it embodies and promotes. Of course, values such as the dignity of every human person, respect for inviolable and inalienable human rights, and the adoption of the "common good" as the end and criterion regulating political life are certainly fundamental and not to be ignored.

The basis of these values cannot be provisional and changeable "majority" opinions, but only the acknowledgment of an objective moral law which, as the "natural law" written in the human heart, is the obligatory point of reference for civil law itself. If, as a result of a tragic obscuring of the collective conscience, an attitude of scepticism were to succeed in bringing into question even the fundamental principles of the moral law, the democratic system itself would be shaken in its foundations, and would be reduced to a mere mechanism for regulating different and opposing interests on a purely empirical basis. ⁸⁹

Some might think that even this function, in the absence of anything better, should be valued for the sake of peace in society. While one acknowledges some element of truth in this point of view, it is easy to see that without an objective moral grounding not even democracy is capable of ensuring a stable peace, especially since peace which is not built upon the values of the dignity of every individual and of solidarity between all people frequently proves to be illusory. Even in participatory systems of government, the regulation of interests often occurs to the advantage of the most powerful, since they are the ones most capable of manoeuvering not only the levers of power but also of shaping the formation of consensus. In such a situation, democracy easily becomes an empty word.

71. It is therefore urgently necessary, for the future of society and the development of a sound democracy, to rediscover those essential and innate human and moral values which flow from the very truth of the human being and express and safeguard the dignity of the person: values which no individual, no majority and no State can ever create, modify or destroy, but must only acknowledge, respect and promote.

Consequently there is a need to recover the basic elements of a vision of the relationship between civil law and moral law, which are put forward by the Church, but which are also part of the patrimony of the great juridical traditions of humanity.

Certainly the purpose of civil law is different and more limited in scope than that of the moral law. But "in no sphere of life can the civil law take the place of conscience or dictate norms concerning things which are outside its competence",⁹⁰ which is that of ensuring the common good of people through the recognition and defence of their fundamental rights, and the promotion of peace and of public morality. ⁹¹ The real purpose of civil law is to guarantee an ordered social coexistence in true justice, so that all may "lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way" (1 Tim 2:2). Precisely for this reason, civil law must ensure that all members of society enjoy respect for certain fundamental rights which innately belong to the person, rights which every positive law must recognize and guarantee. First and fundamental among these is the inviolable right to life of every innocent human being. While public authority can sometimes choose not to put a stop to something which-were it prohibited- would cause more serious harm, ⁹² it can never presume to legitimize as a right of individuals-even if they are the majority of the members of society-an offence against other persons caused by the disregard of so fundamental a right as the right to life. The legal toleration of abortion or of euthanasia can in no way claim to be based on respect for the conscience of others, precisely because society has the right and the duty to protect itself against the abuses which can occur in the name of conscience and under the pretext of freedom. ⁹³

In the Encyclical Pacem in Terris, John XXIII pointed out that "it is generally accepted today that the common good is best safeguarded when personal rights and duties are guaranteed. The chief concern of civil authorities must therefore be to ensure that these rights are recognized, respected, co-ordinated, defended and promoted, and that each individual is enabled to perform his duties more easily. For ?to safeguard the inviolable rights of the human person, and to facilitate the performance of his duties, is the principal duty of every public authority'. Thus any government which refused to recognize human rights or acted in violation of them, would not only fail in its duty; its decrees would be wholly lacking in binding force".⁹⁴

72. The doctrine on the necessary conformity of civil law with the moral law is in continuity with the whole tradition of the Church. This is clear once more from John XXIII's Encyclical: "Authority is a postulate of the moral order and derives from God. Consequently, laws and decrees enacted in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience...; indeed, the passing of such laws undermines the very nature of authority and results in shameful abuse".⁹⁵ This is the clear teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas, who writes that "human law is law inasmuch as it is in conformity with right reason and thus derives from the eternal law. But when a law is contrary to reason, it is called an unjust law; but in this case it ceases to be a law and becomes instead an act of violence".⁹⁶ And again: "Every law made by man can be called a law insofar as it derives from the natural law. But if it is somehow opposed to the natural law, then it is not really a law but rather a corruption of the law".⁹⁷

Now the first and most immediate application of this teaching concerns a human law which disregards the fundamental right and source of all other rights which is the right to life, a right belonging to every individual. 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.

73. 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 Pet 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" (Rev 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 favour of such a law, or vote for it".⁹⁸

A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.

74. The passing of unjust laws often raises difficult problems of conscience for morally upright people with regard to the issue of cooperation, since they have a right to demand not to be forced to take part in morally evil actions. Sometimes the choices which have to be made are difficult; they may require the sacrifice of prestigious professional positions or the relinquishing of reasonable hopes of career advancement. In other cases, it can happen that carrying out certain actions, which are provided for by legislation that overall is unjust, but which in themselves are indifferent, or even positive, can serve to protect human lives under threat. There may be reason to fear, however, that willingness to carry out such actions will not only cause scandal and weaken the necessary opposition to attacks on life, but will gradually lead to further capitulation to a mentality of permissiveness.

In order to shed light on this difficult question, it is necessary to recall the general principles concerning cooperation in evil actions. 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. Were this not so, the human person would be forced to perform an action intrinsically incompatible with human dignity, and in this way human freedom itself, the authentic meaning and purpose of which are found in its orientation to the true and the good, would be radically compromised. What is at stake therefore is an essential right which, precisely as such, should be acknowledged and protected by civil law. In this sense, the opportunity to refuse to take part in the phases of consultation, preparation and execution of these acts against life should be guaranteed to physicians, health-care personnel, and directors of hospitals, clinics and convalescent facilities. 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.

Evangelium Vitae #21-24: ""And from your face I shall be hidden" (Gen 4:14): the eclipse of the sense of God and of man

"And from your face I shall be hidden" (Gen 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.

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 ac- knowledged, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Familiaris Consortio #34-35:The Moral Progress of Married People

34. It is always very important to have a right notion of the moral order, its values and its norms; and the importance is all the greater when the difficulties in the way of respecting them become more numerous and serious.

Since the moral order reveals and sets forth the plan of God the Creator, for this very reason it cannot be something that harms man, something impersonal. On the contrary, by responding to the deepest demands of the human being created by God, it places itself at the service of that person's full humanity with the delicate and binding love whereby God Himself inspires, sustains and guides every creature towards its happiness.

But man, who has been called to live God's wise and loving design in a responsible manner, is an historical being who day by day builds himself up through his many free decisions; and so he knows, loves and accomplishes moral good by stages of growth.

Married people too are called upon to progress unceasingly in their moral life, with the support of a sincere and active desire to gain ever better knowledge of the values enshrined in and fostered by the law of God. They must also be supported by an upright and generous willingness to embody these values in their concrete decisions. They cannot however look on the law as merely an ideal to be achieved in the future: they must consider it as a command of Christ the Lord to overcome difficulties with constancy. "And so what is known as 'the law of gradualness' or step-by-step advance cannot be identified with 'gradualness of the law,' as if there were different degrees or forms of precept in God's law for different individuals and situations. In God's plan, all husbands and wives are called in marriage to holiness, and this lofty vocation is fulfilled to the extent that the human person is able to respond to God's command with serene confidence in God's grace and in his or her own will."(95) On the same lines, it is part of the Church's pedagogy that husbands and wives should first of all recognize clearly the teaching of Humanae vitae as indicating the norm for the exercise of their sexuality, and that they should endeavor to establish the conditions necessary for observing that norm.

As the Synod noted, this pedagogy embraces the whole of married life. Accordingly, the function of transmitting life must be integrated into the overall mission of Christian life as a whole, which without the Cross cannot reach the Resurrection. In such a context it is understandable that sacrifice cannot be removed from family life, but must in fact be wholeheartedly accepted if the love between husband and wife is to be deepened and become a source of intimate joy.

This shared progress demands reflection, instruction and suitable education on the part of the priests, religious and lay people engaged in family pastoral work: they will all be able to assist married people in their human and spiritual progress, a progress that demands awareness of sin, a sincere commitment to observe the moral law, and the ministry of reconciliation. It must also be kept in mind that conjugal intimacy involves the wills of two persons, who are however called to harmonize their mentality and behavior: this requires much patience, understanding and time. Uniquely important in this field is unity of moral and pastoral judgment by priests, a unity that must be carefully sought and ensured, in order that the faithful may not have to suffer anxiety of conscience.(96)

It will be easier for married people to make progress if, with respect for the Church's teaching and with trust in the grace of Christ, and with the help and support of the pastors of souls and the entire ecclesial community, they are able to discover and experience the liberating and inspiring value of the authentic love that is offered by the Gospel and set before us by the Lord's commandment. Instilling Conviction and Offering Practical Help

35. With regard to the question of lawful birth regulation, the ecclesial community at the present time must take on the task of instilling conviction and offering practical help to those who wish to live out their parenthood in a truly responsible way.

In this matter, while the Church notes with satisfaction the results achieved by scientific research aimed at a more precise knowledge of the rhythms of women's fertility, and while it encourages a more decisive and wide-ranging extension of that research, it cannot fail to call with renewed vigor on the responsibility of all-doctors, experts, marriage counselors, teachers and married couples-who can actually help married people to live their love with respect for the structure and finalities of the conjugal act which expresses that love. This implies a broader, more decisive and more systematic effort to make the natural methods of regulating fertility known, respected and applied.(97)

A very valuable witness can and should be given by those husbands and wives who through the joint exercise of periodic continence have reached a more mature personal responsibility with regard to love and life. As Paul VI wrote: "To them the Lord entrusts the task of making visible to people the holiness and sweetness of the law which unites the mutual love of husband and wife with their cooperation with the love of God, the author of human life."(98)

Familiaris Consortio #7:The Influence of Circumstances on the Consciences of the Faithful

The Influence of Circumstances on the Consciences of the Faithful

7. Living in such a world, under the pressures coming above all from the mass media, the faithful do not always remain immune from the obscuring of certain fundamental values, nor set themselves up as the critical conscience of family culture and as active agents in the building of an authentic family humanism.

Among the more troubling signs of this phenomenon, the Synod Fathers stressed the following, in particular: the spread of divorce and of recourse to a new union, even on the part of the faithful; the acceptance of purely civil marriage in contradiction to the vocation of the baptized to "be married in the Lord", the celebration of the marriage sacrament without living faith, but for other motives; the rejection of the moral norms that guide and promote the human and Christian exercise of sexuality in marriage.