The Church's attitude toward life reflects the attitude and actions of Christ himself.  The Word became flesh in the womb of the Virgin Mary, so for Christians, the womb has always been a holy and sacred place.  God's decision to begin his saving work of redemption in the womb teaches us that all life in the womb is precious and worthy of the highest dignity, respect, and protection.

The Gospels describe Jesus' concern and attention for the weakest and most marginalized in society.   In the beatitudes, he called the poor and lowly blessed, and welcomes children as well as proclaiming that his disciples must become like little children in order to share in his kingdom.  He also gave a firm prohibition against killing by recalling the fifth commandment and moving beyond the Old Covenant law, calling us to adhere to the spirit of the Law and recognizing that anger and judgment against our neighbor is the root of violence against them.  This notion is also revealed in the account of Abel's murder by his brother Cain.  From the beginning of human history we observe how anger and envy are the consequence of original sin, but Christ's response to anger, hatred and vengeance is to turn the other cheek and love our enemies.

This Christian view of respect for life is affirmed in the biblical accounts of creation which defines the human being in his essence, that is, created in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26).  The second creation account develops this profound and sacred character describing how God blew into man's nostrils the divine breath of life (Gen 2:7).  It is by this divine life force that an essential feature of man's being is his immediacy with God.

The other dimension taken from the creation account is the recognition that all human beings are one because they come from a single set of parents, and it is the oneness of the human race that defines our equality and establishes the same basic human rights for all.  Therefore, the divine dignity of the human race and the oneness of its origin and destiny are fulfilled in our vocation to divine happiness.  This theological foundation for respecting human life and dignity is articulated well in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's 1987 Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and the Dignity of Procreation: Replies to Certain Questions of the Day :

From the moment of conception, the life of every human being is to be respected in an

absolute way because man is the only creature on earth that God has wished for himself and

the spiritual soul of each man is immediately created by God; his whole being bears the

image of the creator.  Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative

action of God and it remains forever in a special relationship with the creator, who is its sole

end.  God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can, in any

circumstance, claim for himself the right to destroy directly an innocent human being.  (no. 5)

Any such act is gravely contrary to the dignity of the person, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the creator.

The Church has maintained this teaching for respecting the life and dignity of the human person, but in opposition to the morals of the Greco-Roman world, has especially recognized abortion as a serious violation against human life.  As early as the first century, the teaching of the Didache bears witness to the practice and teaching of the early Church: "The second commandment of the teaching: Do not murder; do not commit adultery; do not corrupt boys; do not fornicate; do not steal, do not practice magic; do not go in for sorcery; do not murder a child by abortion or kill a new-born infant" (Richardson 172).  The early Church Fathers also strongly condemned abortion as the killing of innocent human life.  For example, Athenagoras in his 177 A.D. A Plea for Christians wrote :

When we say that those women who use drugs to bring on an abortion commit murder, and

will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit

murder?  For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fetus in the womb as

 a created being, and therefore an object of God's care, and when it has passed into life, to

kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with

child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it.  (no. 35) 

In St. Basil's First Canonical Letter dated 374 A.D., he writes "A woman who has deliberately destroyed a fetus must pay the penalty for murder" (can. 2).  The philosophical and theological discussion during this time centered around the distinction between the formed and the unformed fetus, particularly in reference to the time of animation and the beginning of life (Connery 63).  Although the medical knowledge concerning the life and formation of the fetus was often erroneous, the Church did not waver in her condemnation of abortion.  Even in the middle ages when it was generally held that the spiritual soul was not present until after the first few weeks, there was a distinction made in the evaluation of the sin and the gravity of the penal sanctions, but a directly procured abortion was always considered an objectively grave fault.

This understanding was maintained throughout the first millennium of Christianity and was articulated by conciliar teaching and papal decrees, and continued to be developed further from the Scholastic period onward.  In the twentieth century, Pius XI's 1930 encyclical Casti Connubii called abortion a grave crime and noted that even the imperiled life of the mother could not justify the direct killing of an innocent life rooted in the notion that both the life of the mother and baby are equally sacred according to the precept of God and natural law.  In a similar way, John XXIII in his 1961 encyclical Mater et Magistra recalled the teaching of the Fathers on the sacred character of life which from its beginning demands the action of God (no. 194).

It was at the Second Vatican Council that the Church most severely condemned abortion rooted in the theological understanding of the inherent dignity of the human person.  Gaudium et Spes addressed abortion in two sections.  Under the heading of Respect for the Human Person, the council Fathers observed, "The varieties of crime are numerous: all offenses against life itself, such as murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and willful suicide…[A]ll these and the like are criminal: they poison civilization; and they debase the perpetrators more than the victims and militate against the honor of the creator" (no. 27).  Under the heading of Married Love and Respect for Human Life, they write :

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men

must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves.  Life must be protected with the utmost

care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes…

Let all be convinced that human life and its transmission are realities whose meaning is not

limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full meaning can only be

understood in reference to man's eternal destiny.  (no. 51)

Prompted by the increasingly permissive attitudes towards abortion and the trends for its legalization, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith released Declaration on Procured Abortion in 1974 which further developed the theological foundation for respecting life and dignity in light of reason and faith.  Drawing from natural law and the notion of the common good, the Declaration notes that society is at the service of the person because the person will not fulfill his destiny except in God: "The law is not obliged to sanction everything, but it cannot act contrary to a law which is deeper and more majestic than any human law: the natural law engraved in men's hearts by the creator as a norm which reason clarifies and strives to formulate properly, and which one must always struggle to understand better, but which it is always wrong to contradict" (no. 21).  The Declaration then notes that human law cannot declare to be right anything that would be opposed to the natural law: "It must in any case be clearly understood that whatever may be laid down by civil law in this matter, man can never obey a law which is in itself immoral, and such is the case of a law which would admit in principle the liceity of abortion.  Nor can he take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it.  Moreover, he may not collaborate in its application" (no. 22).

The Declaration stresses that inalienable rights come from God and not the social order, yet society has the function of preserving and enforcing these fundamental human rights, recognizing that the life of the child takes precedence over all opinions: "The first right of the human person is his life.  He has other goods and some are more precious, but this one is fundamental - the condition of all others.  Hence, it must be protected above all others…This right is antecedent to its recognition; it demands recognition and it is strictly unjust to refuse it" (no. 11). 

Addressing the issue of when human life begins, the Declaration notes, "In reality, respect for human life is called for from the time that the process of generation begins.  From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth.  It would never be made human if it were not already human" (no. 12).  In the book, Abortion: A New Generation of Catholic Responses, editor Stephen J. Heaney included an essay titled Divine Revelation and Abortion by Richard R. Roach, S.J. who observes :

With regard to the beginning of human life, I do not find it surprising that some would

think that God's creation of the soul does not take place in an instant, but rather over time

concomitant with physical development.  The same, I suspect, may be true of the dying.

 The soul may not depart in an instant, but slowly.  Reflecting on this, I find a profound

reason why we are forbidden to kill the unborn.  Killing the unborn is like 'killing' God at

work.  At least, it is like killing his work while it is in his hands and still unfinished.  While he

is creating a soul, that is, turning a new human life into a person, we kill what he is working

on.  (Heaney 98)

The Declaration also notes that it is not up to the biological sciences to make a definitive judgment on philosophical and moral questions: "From a moral point of view this is certain: even if a doubt existed concerning whether the fruit of conception is already a human person, it is objectively a grave sin to dare to risk murder…Divine law and natural reason, therefore, exclude all right to the direct killing of an innocent man" (no.'s 13, 14).

The Church's condemnation of abortion is serious enough to include it among the offenses that warrant the penalty of excommunication as noted in canon 1398 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law: "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs an automatic (latae sentenitiae) excommunication."  According to canons 1323 and 1324, excommunication would not be automatically incurred if a person was truly ignorant of the penalty attached to procuring an abortion, was under the age of sixteen, thought that the law applied only to the person having the abortion and not to her accomplices, acted out of serious fear about parental or societal reaction to the pregnancy, or erroneously believed that the abortion was necessary and permissible to preserve the mother's life (Hayes 129).

In 1980, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued Declaration on Euthanasia in which they affirmed the theological foundation for respecting the life and dignity of the human person, but developed it from a perspective of love :

Human life is the basis of all goods, and is the necessary source and condition of every

human activity and of all society.  Most people regard life as something sacred and hold that

no one may dispose of it at will, but believers see in life something greater, namely a gift of

God's love, which they are called upon to preserve and make fruitful…No one can make

an attempt on the life of an innocent person without opposing God's love for that person,

without violating a fundamental human right, and therefore without committing a crime of

the utmost gravity.  (no. 1)

As eluded to above, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's 1987 Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and the Dignity of Procreation: Replies to Certain Questions of the Day represents an important delineation of the Church's theology of respecting the life and dignity of the human person.  It outlines the fundamental anthropological and moral principles concerning the uniquely human origin and dignity of human procreation, noting that procreation is a personal act so it is both biological and spiritual at the same time, and therefore an expression of what it means to be a human person.  As such, procreation is an act in which human persons collaborate with God's creative power which is the only true origin of personhood: "The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life" (no. 13).

This Christian view of personhood stands in stark contrast to the secular notion derived from philosophical ethics and represented by authors such as Tristram Engelhardt and Joseph Fletcher who argue that personhood is not inherent but is achieved by the acquisition of certain traits or qualities.  They also advocate a pro-choice position by diminishing the claim that the fetus is fully human (Vaux 83).  Peter Singer, head of the bioethics department at Princeton University, advocates a similar view of personhood.  In his 1979 book Practical Ethics, he stated, "When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed…[T]he main point is clear: killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person.  Very often it is not wrong at all" (Freedman 26).

The Declaration also develops the notion that human beings "assist" in the emergence of new human persons, and through this assistance, men and women exercise the dominion over creation which is part of their vocation.  These principles are the foundation for the social teaching of the Church, and recognize that the social order is at the service of this human dominion over creation and can only be utilized in ways that respect human personhood.

In 1993, John Paul II developed this theological notion of personhood in his encyclical The Splendor of Truth within the context of moral theology, noting that the relationship between human freedom and truth is the fundamental question of moral theology.  The pope teaches that human freedom is an essential part of our creaturely nature and is the basis for the dignity of the person which is directed toward communion with God.  He also notes that the human person is not a duality of freedom versus nature, but a unity of body and soul, therefore we must respect the physical dimensions of our existence as well as the spiritual.  Thus, respect for human life is not merely an instinct for self-preservation but instead affirms our recognition that life reflects the Creator and the inherent worth of all persons in their bodily and spiritual dimensions.  The pope also recognizes that our contemporary culture emphasizes human freedom, individuality, and the uniqueness of the person; yet if each individual is allowed to determine what is good and evil without reference to God's law, the strong often abuse the weak, as is the case with abortion (no. 86).

The pope and his predecessors clearly teach that there are some human acts that are intrinsically evil and that corresponding to them are moral absolutes.  Moral absolutes are understood as "moral norms that identify certain types of action, which are possible objects of human choice, as always morally bad, and they specify these types of action without using in their description any morally evaluative terms" (May 108).  These norms are called "absolute" because they unconditionally and definitively exclude specific kinds of human actions as morally justifiable objects of choice, and among the absolutes taught by the Magisterium is the norm forbidding direct abortion.

In spite of this clear teaching, some moral theologians have challenged the Church's position on the direct killing of an innocent human being based on the ethical theory of proportionalism.  Rooted in the subjective nature of human acts, proportionalism requires a person to judge a course of action by weighing various goods and evils which may result from a given action, compelling the person to select an action which brings about more good effects, or at least what is the "lesser evil" in a given situation.  Authors Magda Denes, Linda Bird Francke, and David Reardon have documented subjective factors that compelled women to have abortions and in good faith believed that not to have an abortion would do more harm than to have one (Ashley 258).  Since Catholic moral theology insists on the importance of each individual moral act, there is a concern with this notion that looks only to the consequences or results of individual acts.  Specifically, if we look only at the result or consequences of our actions we can easily come to believe that the end justifies the means as long as some good results.  Taken to its logical conclusion, we may come to believe that as long as some personal good can be achieved, we can directly do and intend an act which is morally wrong.  This is an erroneous notion because objectively we recognize that more is required than merely good results and sincerity, that is, a wrong or evil does not change because of our good intentions.  Instead, we must respect the very nature of the act itself and in addition to looking at the consequences and having good intentions, we must do what leads us to God and avoid actions which violate God's will.  In his 1995 encyclical The Gospel of Life, John Paul II pastorally addresses this reality: "Decisions against life sometimes arise from difficult or even tragic situations of profound suffering, loneliness, 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 the choices which in themselves are evil" (no. 19).

The Gospel of Life is the most articulate delineation of the Church's theology of life, and in it the pope highlights the ongoing struggle between the sanctity of life and the culture of death.  The central point of the encyclical is that Jesus came to give us life in abundance, and that the Gospel of salvation proclaims the dignity of the human person and the total commitment of God's love for each person.  Therefore any direct attack on innocent human life is an affront to the Lord of all life.

Paragraphs 58-62 specifically address abortion, and after treating the Church's consistent historical condemnation of abortion, the pope concludes :

Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in

communion with the bishops - who on various occasions have condemned abortion and

who in the aforementioned consultation (Extraordinary Consistory of Cardinals on Threats

to Life, April 1991), albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous

agreement concerning this doctrine declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as

a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent

human being.  (no. 62) 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes the Church's theology of life in Part Three: Life in Christ.  Synthesizing the body of Catholic teaching, this section addresses the dignity of the human person, the human community and our role in society, and God's salvation in the context of natural law and grace.  The second section addresses the ten commandments and treats in detail the fifth commandment and the Christian call to respect human life and dignity.  In the same section, the Catechism also addresses peace, noting that when we recall the commandment "You shall not kill," Christ asks for peace of heart and denounces murderous anger and hatred as immoral (CCC 2302).  There is also the recognition that "Respect for and development of human life requires peace" (CCC 2304).  John Paul II acknowledges this theme at the beginning of The Gospel of Life when he says, "Respect, protect, love and serve life, every human life!  Only in this direction will you find justice, development, true freedom, peace and happiness!" (no. 5)

In addition to the many magisterial teachings, various Christian circles have addressed the issue of abortion and the theology of life.  Important among these was Cardinal Joseph Bernardin's comprehensive ethical system of the consistent ethic of life which he developed during his work on the U.S. bishops' 1983 Pastoral Letter The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response.  Joining the topics of abortion and nuclear war, he recognized that there were a variety of threats to human life.  In order to articulate a Christian response to these varied threats, it was necessary to emphasize the interconnection of the many efforts to defend human life, so the progress in the defense and protection of life in one arena could be applied to the defense and protection of life in all arenas.  The foundation for this notion is the recognition that all human life is sacred and we have a personal and social responsibility to protect and preserve the sanctity of life.  In The Challenge of Peace, this connection between life issues is articulated well :

When we accept violence in any form as commonplace, our sensitivities become dulled. 

When we accept violence, war itself can be taken for granted.  Violence has many faces:

oppression of the poor, deprivation of basic human rights, economic exploitation, sexual

exploitation and pornography, neglect or abuse of the aged and the helpless, and

innumerable other acts of inhumanity.  Abortion in particular blunts a sense of the

sacredness of human life.  In a society where the innocent unborn are killed wantonly, how

can we expect people to feel righteous revulsion at the act or threat of killing noncombatants

in war? (no. 285)

In a 1986 address titled, The Consistent Ethic: What Sort of Framework,  Bernardin acknowledges that human life is both sacred and social :

The theological assertion that the human person is made in the image and likeness of God,

the philosophical affirmation of the dignity of the human person, and the political principle

that society and state exist to serve the person - all these themes stand behind the consistent

ethic.  They also sustain the positions that the U.S. Catholic bishops have taken on issues as

diverse as nuclear policy, social policy, and abortion.  These themes provide the basis for the

moral perspective of the consistent ethic.  (348)

While acknowledging the variety of issues, Bernardin recognized that no individual or group can pursue all the life issues, but noted that the consistent ethic does not allow for contradictory moral positions about the unique value of human life.  James Kelly, a professor at Fordham University, addressed this in the April 1, 2000 issue of America when he noted that during the 1990's more Catholics became consistently against both abortion and capital punishment, partially reversing the trend of the 1980's when many Catholics were against abortion but supported capital punishment.  It is this interconnection of issues that calls us to respect the life in the womb, the life of the guilty criminal, the life of the homeless person, and the life of the dying.  We are thus continually challenged to reflect on our basic moral values.

In the preface of his book that was quoted above, Stephen J. Heaney observes, "The Catholic Church, in her tradition and teaching, is a Church driven by Christ's commandment to love one another.  But the Church's compassion for all human beings does not exist in a vacuum; it is wedded to the truth, the Truth who is Jesus, who is the truth about who we are as human beings, and about how we relate to each other, the world, and God" (xii).  He notes that the Church's consistent condemnation of abortion is accessible to both the mind and the heart, and is a truth taught in love.  In addressing the theological aspects of human life and dignity, it is important to include this pastoral dimension.

Another area where the Church's theology of the life and dignity of the human person has been both developed and applied is in the realm of health care.  This teaching is clearly rooted in the Church's commitment to promote and defend human life and dignity which flows from creation in the image of God, redemption by Jesus, and our common destiny to share a life with God beyond all corruption (Carey 627).  The Church further recognizes the biblical mandate to care for the poor and sick and to contribute to the common good.   This mandate promotes the responsible stewardship of health care resources which in turn contributes to a just health care system that respects the person's basic right to these services.

This theology is insightfully developed when considering the issues that effect care for the dying, where the Church reminds us that life is a precious gift from God and has profound implications concerning our responsibility for the stewardship over human life.  The USCCB's Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services which was revised in June of 2001 (Origins Vol. 31:No.9) indicates that we are not the owners of our lives and thus do not have absolute power over life.  While we do have a duty to preserve our life and use it for the greater glory of God, we also acknowledge that this duty is not absolute because we may reject life-prolonging procedures that would be excessively burdensome or not be sufficiently beneficial.  At the same time, we recognize that suicide and euthanasia are never morally acceptable options.  We are called to reflect on the innate dignity of human life in all its dimensions and on the foundational purpose of medical care in order to formulate a true moral judgment, where life-sustaining technology is judged in light of the Christian meaning of life, suffering, and death (160)

While the Church has drawn from two millennia of moral reflection based ultimately on divine revelation, there is also the recognition that Catholic theology and the Catholic moral tradition mostly predate the development of genetic technologies.  In spite of this reality, these technologies must ultimately serve the human person.  In an address to the Pontifical Academy for Life in November 1995, John Paul II noted :

Indeed, the biomedical sciences are currently experiencing a period of rapid and marvelous

growth, especially with regard to new discoveries in the area of genetics…[B]ut if scientific

research is to be directed toward respect for personal dignity and support of human life, its

scientific validity according to the rules of each discipline is not enough.  It must also qualify

positively from the ethical point of view, and this presupposes that from the outset it

endeavors to promote the true good of human beings as individuals and as a community.

(Carey 805)

Building on this general notion of community and common good, the Church promotes the important theological dimension of a social mission rooted in Christ's own prophetic mission.  In his 1987 encyclical On Social Concern, John Paul II writes :

The Church is an 'expert in humanity,' and this leads her necessarily to extend her religious

mission to the various fields in which men and women expend their efforts…[I]n line with

their dignity as persons…In doing so the Church fulfills her mission to evangelize…

[W]hen she proclaims the truth about Christ, about herself and about man, applying this

truth to a concrete situation.  The teaching and spreading of her social doctrine are part of

the Church's evangelizing mission.  And since it is doctrine aimed at guiding people's

behavior, it consequently gives rise to a commitment of justice, according to each

individual's role, vocation, and circumstances. (no. 41)

In their 1989 statement Called to Compassion and Responsibility: A Response to the HIV/AIDS Crisis, the U.S. bishops apply this notion and develop the theological idea of a call to integrity that integrates a practical understanding of the dignity of the human person that respects the sexual order.  Drawing from John's Gospel and Jesus' prayer to the Father "that they may be one…[A]s we are one" (Jn 17:21-22), the bishops note that Jesus reveals that there is a likeness between the unity of the divine persons in the Trinity and the unity of human persons with one another.  From the model of the Trinity, we learn that we become most fully ourselves by giving ourselves to others, so an abuse of self is also an act of injustice to others, and the abuse of others is both an abuse of self and an abuse of our relationship with God.  We are called to recognize the basic goodness of our personhood as God has created it, and all people are obligated to honor the integrity of the human person by respecting themselves along with all other persons (Carey 172).

From this foundation, there is a recognition that the meaning of sexuality and personhood can only be understood within this framework of human integrity.  God created the human race in the complementarity of the sexes so that man and woman may find their fulfillment through a mutual union ordained by the Creator to the generation of human life.  It is in this complementarity that they are created as the image of God, and human sexuality is recognized as an emotional and spiritual potentiality which calls for free decision and personal commitment.  Respect for the sexual order established by God and confirmed by Christ is part of the Christian's conformity to the ideal of Christian love (Dupuis 897).  God's love is creative, so the marital act as a simultaneous expression of both human personhood and divine creative love is the only proper context for human reproduction of new persons.  Any other way compromises the dignity of personhood (Albacete 12).  It is through both this respect of self and mutual respect for others that we observe the generosity and fruitfulness of God's original plan.  It is also through the grace of redemption that we are endowed with a new dignity through the Holy Spirit which dwells within us and calls us to live as temples of the Spirit.

Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of body and soul, and the Church recognizes that the virtue of chastity integrates the internal powers of life and love.  This integrity ensures the unity of the person and opposes anything that would impair this unity.  Growth in chastity requires a cultural transformation on the part of society which respects the rights of others and recognizes the moral and spiritual dimensions of human life.

It is clear that the theology of respect for human life and dignity cannot be separated from the understanding of our integrated sexuality and the Church's missionary mandate to spread this Gospel message of truth and life.  It is this unique theological context that puts the Church's understanding of life and dignity into perspective.

John Paul II summed up this theology well in his 1999 Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Ecclesia in America: "It is important to recall that the foundation on which all human rights rests is the dignity of the human person…The human being's dignity as a child of God is the source of human rights and of corresponding duties.  For this reason, every offense against the dignity of man is an offense against God himself, in whose image man is made" (no. 57).

Part 3: The Life Issues: Abortion in Relation to Euthanasia and Capital Punishment

The office of The Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities of the USCCB works to teach respect for all human life and to organize for its protection, especially on behalf of the unborn, disabled, elderly and dying.  It is through this office that the resources for abortion and euthanasia are organized and the major pro-life programs of the Church are designed and implemented. On the other hand, the Department of Social Development and World Peace serves as the national public policy agency for the bishops and works to share and apply the Church's social teaching to both domestic and international issues.  It is through this office that resources for capital punishment are organized and disseminated.  While the three life issues are often treated together within the context of human life and dignity in the bishop's general social justice statements during the 1990's, there appears to be an ideological separation between the treatment of abortion and euthanasia and the treatment of capital punishment.

In their 1994 pastoral Confronting a Culture of Violence, the bishops articulately frame the three life issues within the social context of protecting human life and the promotion of human dignity against the distorted mentality of violence that perpetuates attacks on human life :

Increasingly, our society looks to violent measures to deal with some of our most

difficult social problems - millions of abortions to address problem pregnancies,

advocacy of euthanasia and assisted suicide to cope with the burdens of age and illness, and increased reliance on the death penalty to deal with crime…A society which destroys its children, abandons its old, and relies on vengeance fails fundamental moral tests.  Violence is not the solution; it is the most clear sign of failures.  We are losing our respect for human life.  How do we teach the young to curb their violence when we embrace it as the solution to our social problems? (Carey 648)

In their 1999 Statement Faithful Citizenship, the bishops again address the three life issues within the context of moral priorities for public life, restating their belief that abortion and euthanasia are the "preeminent threats to human life and dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental good and condition for all others" (16).  They go on to say that laws that legitimize abortion and euthanasia are profoundly wrong and unjust.  Likewise, they condemn the increasing use of the death penalty and claim that respect for human life must include respect for the lives of those who have taken the lives of others: "As part of our pro-life commitment, we encourage solutions to violent crime that reflect the dignity of the human person, urging our nation to abandon the use of capital punishment" (17).  In a general call to pursue social justice, the bishops remind us that all people are called to commit themselves to protect and promote the life and dignity of the human person and the common good of society as a whole.

Euthanasia

When reviewing the bishops treatment of euthanasia, the idea that there is an inseparable relationship between abortion and euthanasia becomes clear.  As far back as June of 1974, the bishops released the statement A Review of the Principle Trends in the Life of the Catholic Church in the United States, where they observe :

            There is now widespread, although by no means universal, acceptance of abortion on the

grounds of convenience.  The right of each woman to exercise control over her body is

frequently advanced as a total and self-evident justification for the destruction of unborn life. 

Similarly, self-centered and individualistic attitudes underlie the growing movement for

legalized euthanasia.  Although "humane" arguments are generally put forward in favor of

euthanasia, the reality is that many people now accept the idea that persons whose age,

illness, or incapacity renders them burdensome have thereby forfeited the right to life.  (no. 7)

            As mentioned in Part 1, the bishops' 1995 statement Faithful for Life was specifically written to address the inseparable relationship between abortion and euthanasia.  The bishops recognize that the choice of either is rooted in the mentality of choice, privacy, and autonomy that has pervaded our culture since the legalization of abortion in 1973 :

As disciples of Christ, as bishops in his Church, our first concern for human life has to be for those who are unwanted - with fatal results - by their parents or their children, or by society itself.  Such as these fall victim to the ultimate abuse of abortion or euthanasia.  As human beings we are outraged at the cruel injustice of these acts of deliberate killing.  And our Christian faith gives an even sharper edge to our consciences in this matter, compelling us to call for courage and unconditional love in defense of those who are helpless.  (4)

The bishops continue to develop this relationship between abortion and euthanasia in their 1998 statement Living the Gospel of Life when they note that American culture is structured according to the ideals of utility, productivity, and cost-effectiveness, and that the unborn, infirm, and terminally ill do not meet this standard of utility and therefore have no voice.  They further note that the family and healing professions that have traditionally provided a safe haven for these weakest among us have also been undermined by the ideologies that fuel a culture of death.  Abortion and euthanasia are seen as the preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself; the most fundamental human good and condition for all others.

In September of 1991, the Administrative Committee of the NCCB issued Statement on Euthanasia in response to the current efforts to legalize euthanasia and the subsequent public interest in the legalization of assisted suicide.  In addressing those who advocate these efforts, the bishops note that, "Borrowing language from the abortion debate, they insist that the 'right to choose' must prevail over all other considerations" (Carey 291).  Drawing from the condemnation of euthanasia described in Gaudium et Spes no. 27 and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's 1980 Declaration on Euthanasia, the bishops remind us that, "Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person or one suffering from an incurable disease or a person who is dying" (Carey 291).

Recognizing the impact the legalization of abortion has had on respect for human life and dignity, the bishops appeal to our nations founding principles: "The Declaration of Independence proclaims our inalienable rights to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'  If our right to life is diminished in value, our other rights will have no meaning" (Carey 292).  They end by calling on all persons of good will to oppose any proposals that would legalize euthanasia, a call consistent with their efforts to undo Roe v. Wade and ongoing support of a human life amendment.

Apart from addressing euthanasia in relation to abortion, the bishops specifically treated euthanasia in two statements in 1976.  The first was Society and the Aged: Toward Reconciliation, in which they observe the paradox of an aging nation living within a culture that venerates youthfulness.  The bishops note that the right to life of the elderly is under both direct and indirect attack because of the "mercy killing" mentality of a society that ignores, rejects, and isolates the elderly.  They go on to urge continued opposition to euthanasia and "death with dignity" legislation.  In their general statement, To Live in Christ Jesus: A Pastoral Reflection on the Moral Life, they again condemn the increasing advocacy for "death with dignity" and call for a recognition of the moral difference between respecting the dying process and engaging in the direct killing of the innocent (no. 58).

              Continuing their specific attention to euthanasia, in April of 1992 the Committee for Pro-Life Activities of the NCCB issued the statement, Nutrition and Hydration: Moral and Pastoral Reflections. In it, the bishops affirm the Catholic tradition of preserving human life by rejecting the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration necessary to sustain life, but also recognize the limits to that duty.  They acknowledge that their principles do not provide clear and final answers to all the moral questions that may arise with individual cases, but encourage Catholics to make such treatment decisions in accord with respect for God's gift of life.

The bishops articulately develop the basic Judeo-Christian moral principles related to respecting life, and quote the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith's 1974 Declaration on Procured Abortion which reaffirms the fact that life is the first right of the human person and the condition for all others, as well as restating the Church's consistent opposition to all direct attacks on human life.  Defining the term "euthanasia," they state, "All crimes against life, including euthanasia or willful suicide, must be opposed.  Euthanasia is an action or an omission which of itself or by intention causes death, in order that all suffering may be eliminated" (Carey 430).  They also develop the notion that the Church's teaching provides a basis for just social order.

The remainder of the statement addresses specific questions regarding medically assisted nutrition and hydration; and the bishops offer insight into the decision making process: "Out of respect for the dignity of the human person, we are obliged to preserve our own lives, and help others preserve theirs, by the use of means that have a reasonable hope of sustaining life without imposing unreasonable burdens on those we seek to help, that is, on the patient and his or her family and community" (Carey 433).

When considering the Church's understanding of euthanasia, it is necessary to make an important moral distinction.  While euthanasia is an action or omission that directly and intentionally causes death for the purpose of eliminating all suffering, it is morally licit to forgo medical treatments which no longer correspond to the actual situation of the patient because they are disproportionate to the expected results or impose an excessive burden on the patient and family.  Part IV of the CDF's Declaration on Euthanasia deals with ordinary and extraordinary treatment.  In general, ordinary means of treatment are those medical procedures that are well established and not excessively burdensome due to expense or side effects.  Extraordinary means of treatment are those medical procedures that are considered exceptional because they are experimental, expensive, or have serious physical or psychological side effects.  Any means of treatment would depend on the patient's age, condition, and available technology.  From a Christian perspective, the forgoing of extraordinary or disproportionate means is considered an expression of acceptance of the human condition in the face of death.

While the terms "euthanasia" and "physician assisted suicide" are generally interchangeable in the sense that they both are the intentional killing of another human being, there is a more developed understanding within the Church that these practices are considered tantamount to murder.  In The Gospel of Life, John Paul II declares, "I confirm that euthanasia is a grave violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person…Depending on the circumstances, this practice involves the malice proper to suicide or murder" (no. 65).  The pope continues by calling euthanasia a "perversion of mercy," and notes that "True compassion leads to sharing another's pain; it does not kill the person whose suffering we cannot bear" (no. 66).

In his 1998 book Death as a Salesman, Brian Johnson examines the history of the euthanasia movement, and confirms that advocates claim that it is a way of "helping" individuals who are depressed about their terminal condition.  Johnson notes that in reality, "helping to kill a patient takes the least time and the least care of all the possible options.  On the contrary, hospice is an example of how society can empathize and care for these patients" (16).  He also notes that "putting an end to suffering" is one of the most frequently used reasons to justify killing the patient, but medical studies with terminal patients conclude that a request to die is often a strong indication that the pain is not being adequately treated.  When proper pain management techniques are used, patients are less likely to react with a request to die (24).

It is also interesting that proponents of euthanasia often present their case through emotional arguments that play on people's fears of suffering, loss of independence, and expensive but futile treatments that only drag out the dying process.  Proponents of abortion do the same when they try to justify abortion using emotional arguments that involve the "hard cases" of rape and incest, the loss of independence that a woman would experience from having a baby which would consequently alter her lifestyle, and the expense and inconvenience of raising a child.

Before Cardinal Joseph Bernardin died of cancer in 1996, he petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court not to create a right to assisted suicide.  Even in the midst of his own suffering and impending death, Bernardin eloquently recognized that assisted suicide is both an attack on innocent life and the common good.  He helped articulate the Church's opposition to assisted suicide, noting first and foremost that it is a violation of God's sovereignty over life.  It also is a rejection of God's gracious gift of life and contradicts our most basic natural instincts of self preservation, and is a clear violation of the Church's consistent teaching against directly taking innocent human life.  Finally, it injures the community by depriving society of one of its valuable members and often demoralizes those loved ones left behind (McCormick 3).

The present situation in Oregon demonstrates the Church's concern with the euthanasia movement.  Oregon legalized assisted suicide in 1997, and the legislation was advocated as a matter of personal choice under the heading of a person's "right to die."  Since that time, there has been a trend among those who died by physician-assisted suicide to choose it because they feared being a burden to their family.  What was advocated as a matter of personal choice has evolved into  vulnerable people's believing they now have a "duty to die" because the option is now available; yet suicide is never the only way out from physical or emotional pain.  The reality is that people facing end of life issues are vulnerable, but these situations also provide an opportunity for growth in both the one who is dependent and the one who ministers to that dependent person.

The Church's wisdom affirms that sanctioning the taking of innocent human life ultimately demeans the lives of the most vulnerable and exposes them to exploitation by those who are entrusted to their care.  It also contributes to the corruption of the medical profession because it violates the ethical code of healing by which physicians are called to serve.  Finally, there is the Catholic belief in redemptive suffering which recognizes that the suffering of Christ was not meaningless, and as his followers we embrace the cross and join our pain and suffering to his.  Ultimately we recognize that we do not solve problems by killing people with problems, but instead we address the problem.  In a similar way, while not every illness can be cured, every patient must be cared for.  Any failure to show reverence for or to safeguard a patient's life is an attack on that individual person, on the others involved, on the medical profession, on society, and on divinely established principles.

Capital Punishment

In North America, the Canadian bishops in 1960 were the first to advocate abolishing the death penalty spurred on by revisions in the Criminal Code that was adopted in 1961 (Melton 2).  In 1973, the U.S. bishops took up the issue of correctional facilities with the statement The Reform of Correctional Institutions in the 1970's.  There was no mention of capital punishment, but the following year they issued their first statement opposing capital punishment titled Resolution Against Capital Punishment.  The main point of the two paragraph statement said, "The U.S. Catholic Conference goes on record in opposition to capital punishment," and it was accepted by a vote of one hundred eight to sixty three (no. 2).

Prior to this resolution, the five bishops of Florida issued Statement on Capital Punishment in November of 1972 in response to the June decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that declared the death penalty unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the eighth amendment's exclusion of "cruel and unusual punishment."  The bishops were concerned because this ruling did not preclude the right of states to enact laws imposing the death penalty provided that such laws could be constitutionally defended.  While they expressed hope that capital punishment would be abolished altogether, they noted, "Many men of good will nevertheless remain convinced that the death penalty serves as a strong deterrent of the more heinous crimes.  For this reason alone it would be unrealistic to assume that capital punishment will not be restored on a very limited basis in Florida."  They go on to note that the law's application was characterized by unevenness and that those executed were primarily indigent and minorities.

In February of 1973, Bishop Joseph Green of Reno, Nevada issued his own statement, Statement of Bishop Joseph Green, Roman Catholic Bishop of Reno in which he noted, "In its official teaching the Catholic Church has not taken a position relative to the retention or abolition of capital punishment."  However, rooted in the Church's position on the preservation of human life, he urged the Governor and State Legislature to consider alternatives to capital punishment.

During this time when the bishops were studying the question of capital punishment, there was no clear consensus on the issue, and even some instances of public support for capital punishment by certain bishops.  In her book Dead Man Walking, Sr. Helen Prejean recounts her experience with Archbishop Philip Hannon who retired as archbishop of New Orleans in 1989.  In one capital case, Hannon sent two elderly priests to counter the testimony of a Jesuit priest, George Lundy, who urged the jury to vote for life.  When the pro-death penalty D.A. asked Hannon to give his official position on the death penalty in writing, the archbishop obliged him, "setting forth a pro-capital punishment position and assuring Catholics that they can in good conscience endorse capital punishment" (54).

In 1977, Archbishop Francis Furey of San Antonio, Texas issued a statement supporting the use of capital punishment after the execution of Gary Gilmore in Utah.  He noted that the Catholic Church did not have a specific position on capital punishment and has always supported the right of the state to impose the death penalty in order to protect its citizens.  As evidence that there was no clear consensus on the issue within the Church, he cited the bishops' 1974 Resolution Against Capital Punishment and noted that the original seven page statement was rejected.  It was only after the statement was revised to a single sentence and proposed as a simple motion needing only a majority vote that it was passed.

When examining the use of capital punishment in the United States, we observe that thirty eight states allow capital punishment.  Bishops from twelve of those states have spoken out against it on various occasions either through their state Catholic Conferences or within their individual dioceses.  Of the twelve states that do not allow capital punishment including the District of Columbia, bishops from four of those states have similarly spoken out against its use.  Most of the statements were issued during the 1990's and were drawn from the NCCB's 1980 Statement on Capital Punishment, their most comprehensive treatment of the issue to date.  With the notable exception of Bishops Hannon and Furey, the U.S. bishops' public opposition to capital punishment has been consistent since the late 1970's, although consensus among individual bishops in this regard developed over a longer period than opposition to abortion and euthanasia.

In their Statement on Capital Punishment, the bishops address the purposes of punishment in relation to the Christian values that compel them to oppose its use.  They acknowledge the need to seek a balance between the relevant issues that constitute the debate over capital punishment: "We should acknowledge that in the public debate over capital punishment we are dealing with values of the highest importance: respect for the sanctity of human life, the protection of human life, the preservation of order in society, and the achievement of justice through law" (no. 3).  They also note that Catholic teaching has accepted the principle that the state has the right both to take the life of a person guilty of an extremely serious crime and to take appropriate measures to protect itself and its citizens from grave harm.

Making an important reference to the relationship between capital punishment and abortion and euthanasia, the bishops state :

Abolition of the death penalty is further testimony to our conviction, a conviction which we

share with the Judaic and Islamic traditions, that God is indeed the Lord of life.  It is a

testimony which removes a certain ambiguity which might otherwise affect the witness that

we wish to give to the sanctity of life in all stages.  We do not wish to equate the situation of

criminals convicted of capital offenses with the condition of the innocent unborn or of the

defenseless aged or infirm, but we do believe that the defense of life is strengthened by

eliminating exercise of juridical authorization to take human life. (no. 12)

A decade later, the bishops make another reference to the relationship between abortion and capital punishment in The Harvest of Justice is Sown in Peace.  Focusing on the human toll of violence and the need for peace, they observe: "In abortion and renewed dependence on capital punishment, we see the tragic consequences of a growing lack of respect for human life.  We cannot really be peacemakers around the world unless we seek to protect the lives and dignity of the vulnerable in our midst" (Carey 551).

Throughout the 1990's there is a discernible shift in the bishops' treatment of capital punishment in response to The Gospel of Life and the revision of the Catechism of the Catholic Church to reflect the pope's call to end the death penalty.  While the Church continues to maintain that legitimate state authorities have an obligation to protect society from aggressors, which includes the use of capital punishment, other available options make the carrying out of such a punishment "very rare if not practically nonexistent" (CCC 2267).

When the pope visited the United States in January of 1999 and called for an end to the death penalty, the Administrative Board of the U.S. Catholic Conference issued the statement, A Good Friday Appeal to End the Death Penalty.  They reaffirmed their opposition to the death penalty and called for all people of good will and especially Catholics to work to end the death penalty.  Echoing the words of the pope, the bishops call the death penalty both cruel and unnecessary and a perpetuation of violence.  They also encourage greater efforts within the Catholic community to support victims of crime and their families and to support all other efforts to uphold the dignity of all human life.

              At their November 2000 meeting, the bishops approved a statement developed by the Committee on Domestic Policy.  In Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice, they called for a new national dialogue on crime and correction, justice and mercy, and responsibility and treatment, in order to restore a sense of civility and promote genuine rehabilitation.  The statement addressed a number of important issues, framing them within the principles of Catholic social teaching, and noting that "both the most wounded victim and the most callous criminal retain their humanity" (21).

In a special section, the bishops acknowledge that this statement does not focus on the death penalty, but they do renew their strong and principled opposition to it joining with those working to end the death penalty and supporting calls for a moratorium on executions.  Quoting their earlier statements including Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics, A Good Friday Appeal to End the Death Penalty, and the revised Catechism of the Catholic Church, they note:

We know this is not an easy matter.  Catholic teaching has developed over time and there

have been diverse views on the application of these principles.  However, as we begin this

new millennium, Pope John Paul II, the U.S. Catholic bishops, and the Catechism of the

Catholic Church together express the strong conviction that capital punishment should no

longer be used since there are better ways to protect society, and the death penalty

diminishes respect for human life. (33)

They appeal to pastors, catechists, educators, and parishioners to join them in rethinking the issue of capital punishment and to commit themselves to pursuing justice without vengeance.

In the bishops' new Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities released in December of 2001, capital punishment is highlighted as an issue of particular concern under its own heading.  For the first time, it specifically lists support for efforts to end the death penalty among the bishops' recommended public policy goals.

When reviewing the U.S. bishops treatment of the three life issues, there is a clear recognition of the connection between abortion and euthanasia.  While respecting the life and dignity of the human person is foundational to all the life issues, this connection between abortion and euthanasia is rooted in the Church's pastoral compassion for the weakest in our midst.  Because the Church repeatedly condemns abortion and euthanasia as the "preeminent threats to human life and dignity," the bishops have devoted substantial attention to pastorally educating the faithful on these issues through their statements and letters.  It is also clear that the bishops have been consistent and universal in their condemnation of abortion and euthanasia; a position that reflects not only the historic teaching of the Church but a strong theme of Catholic teaching since the Second Vatican Council.

This theme is evident in John Paul II's 1991 letter to the world's bishops, On Combating Abortion and Euthanasia, which was written to lay the foundation for his encyclical The Gospel of Life.  The pope used an analogy related to the encyclical Rerum Novarum which addressed the oppression of the fundamental rights of the working class and recalled how the Church courageously came to their defense by proclaiming their sacrosanct rights as persons.  In the same way, the pope recognized that in our present time, the fundamental right to life of persons in another category is being oppressed, and that the Church is obligated to speak out courageously on the behalf of those who have no voice, specifically the unborn and aged.

Similarly, in an address commemorating the fifth anniversary of the release of The Gospel of Life in February 2000, the pope strongly condemned abortion and euthanasia, equating them to legalized crimes that corrupt society because any policy or law that opposes life ultimately leads to the degradation of society.  There is a clear recognition by the Church that both abortion and euthanasia make helpless people die.

While the bishops' consistent and universal condemnation of capital punishment has evolved in a more nuanced manner since the 1970's, the foundational aspect that links it to abortion and euthanasia are the themes of violence and loss of respect for life.

Since 1994, the Department of Social Development and World Peace has offered a "Stand Against Violence" resource package through the National Catholic Anti-Violence Working Group.  In the year 2002, they especially recognize the human cost of violence and see a world losing respect for human life after the September 11^th terrorist attacks and the spate of anthrax-laced letters in 2001.  In the introduction of the resource packet, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick notes that in the face of such violence and lack of respect for life, we must "rely on the principles of our Christian faith and turn to those whose lives are examples of love, forgiveness and understanding."  He also notes that as long as over 1.4 million children are never allowed to see the day of their birth, a culture of life will not be realized.

The policy agenda for 2002 includes resources on crime and the Catholic community and on the death penalty, focusing on the fact that in spite of the individual circumstances of convicted criminals, their lives and dignity should be protected and respected.  There is a strong call to seek justice instead of vengeance, and that punishment should have the dual purpose of protecting society and rehabilitating those who violate the law, challenging the culture of violence and encouraging a culture of life.

While respecting life and dignity and opposing violence are universal Christian themes, there still seems to be a tension among some groups that advocate opposition to abortion and euthanasia and opposition to capital punishment.  The National Catholic Reporter regularly runs a feature called "Death Watch" which lists the names of those persons executed over the previous week and keeps a running count of the number of executions since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976.  In the February 23, 2001 issue, a letter to the editor requested that the NCR include in "Death Watch" the number of babies killed each week by abortion and keep a running count of the number of deaths since the Supreme Court legalized abortion in 1973.  In the April 27, 2001 issue, two letters were printed in response to the request.  One letter opposed the idea claiming that pro-life advocates exaggerate the number of abortion deaths in order to magnify their anti-abortion agenda.  The other letter supported the idea noting that our Christian commitment to life, justice, equality and peace is without meaning if we ignore the foundational issue of abortion.

There is a similar paradox concerning those who oppose capital punishment but support euthanasia.  In Dead Man Walking, Sr. Helen Prejean points out that execution of a prisoner costs more than life imprisonment because of the substantial additional trial costs associated with capital cases.  She estimates that each death sentence costs approximately $3.18 million, compared to the cost of life imprisonment (40 years) of about $516,000 (130).  Many people oppose capital punishment on the grounds that it is unjust and flawed, citing recent cases of prosecutorial misconduct, incompetent counsel, and inadmissible but exculpatory evidence such as DNA.  These circumstances can lead to the execution of an innocent person whose life can never be restored.  Yet, those who support euthanasia are not willing to spend $516,000 to keep an innocent comatose or ill person alive even if there is hope for recovery, but they are willing to spend that same amount to keep a convicted criminal behind bars for the rest of his life.

When considering the three life issues, we recognize the wisdom of the Church in adopting a consistent ethic of life that promotes a broad spectrum of issues that seeks to protect all human life and promote human dignity from conception until natural death.  The bishops remind us in Political Responsibility that "opposition to abortion and euthanasia does not exclude indifference to those who suffer from poverty, violence, and injustice" (no.23).  In response to their faith in Christ, Catholics are especially called to be advocates for the weak and marginalized in all areas affecting human life and dignity.