We must proclaim the Gospel of Life
by emphasizing the importance
solidarity and love over selfishness.

Evangelium Vitae: A cultural time bomb

By Thomas G. Morrow

One of the trademarks of Pope John Paul II is to analyze a moral problem, and then get at the roots, the philosophical underpinnings of it. After that, he unmasks those roots, and shows how they are incompatible with the Gospel. Then he proposes a philosophical foundation for gospel morality. He did this with communism in Poland as a member of the “Lublin Project.” He and several other professors at the Catholic University of Lublin set out to topple the totalitarian errors of the day by defending the dignity of the human person, and defeating Marxism on its own field—the issue of the human person’s liberation.1 It was this personalist philosophy of the Lublin school, which would spread throughout the world and the Church and establish a new Christian humanism. In fact Wojtyla and others brought personalism to Vatican II and revolutionized moral theology.

When Karol Wojtyla became pope, he quickly identified the underpinnings of the contraception revolution, namely dualism. This dualism was a trivialization of the body, which tried to downplay the importance of bodily acts for the good of man. Using his well-developed personalist philosophy, John Paul, in his exhortation on the family, Familiaris consortio, and his Wednesday talks on the Theology of The Body, proclaimed the perennial Catholic view that the body, although not more important than the spirit, is nonetheless very important for the well-being of the person. What we do can have a great impact on our own human flourishing. The impact of that theology is just beginning to be felt.

It seems that he found another faulty view of man in the “Culture of Death,” which free sex and widespread contraception has spawned. In order to combat this evil, he set about to define the philosophical elements which would make clear the error of this ethical plague and bring the world back to its senses. He spelled out his plan in Evangelium vitae. As has been said of some of his other works, this encyclical could be seen as a theological time bomb, insofar as everything is there to eventually explode the myths of the Culture of Death. It just requires the study and promulgation of his ideas to bring about victory. This article is an attempt to do just that, in some small way.

What I will attempt to do herein is to draw from seven sections of Evangelium vitae to get at his overall analysis of the “gospel” of death, and it’s antidote, the Gospel of life. First, we will consider his identification of the contradiction between “human rights” movements and the culture of death (n. 18). Then, we’ll look at his analysis of the roots of the culture of death (nn. 19-23). And finally, we’ll consider the core, the consequences and the foundation of the Gospel of life (n. 81).

Human rights contradictions
The holy father first considers the contradiction prevalent in the world-wide “human rights” movement. He acknowledges that some decisions against life arise from tragic personal situations, which can mitigate the culpability of those who make such evil choices. However, today it goes far beyond such “hard cases.” Crimes against life are more and more claimed to be legitimate expressions of freedom, the “rights” of individuals. In other words, we have a situation in which anti-life activity is claimed as a “human right,” rather than a crime against humanity: the right to “choose” abortion; the right to die; reproductive rights.2

Thus, he says, we have reached a historical “turning-point.” The way which led to the discovery of “human rights,” inherent in each person, and prior to any laws, is marked by a contradiction.

Precisely in an age when the inviolable rights of the person are solemnly proclaimed and the value of life is publicly affirmed, the very right to life is being denied or trampled upon, especially at the more significant moments of existence: the moment of birth and the moment of death.3

On one hand we have a growing moral sensitivity to acknowledging the dignity of each person, without distinction of race, national origin, religion, political view or social class. On the other hand, these proclamations are repudiated in practice. This, despite our society’s boast to want to make human rights paramount. The attacks on the elderly, the needy, the weak, the newly conceived, are a threat to the entire culture of human rights. It is a threat against democracy itself, with some people marginalized and oppressed.4

Concern for rights in international meetings becomes mere rhetoric when rich countries selfishly exclude the poorer countries from access to development, or make it dependent on cutting back procreation. Thus, we set up “an opposition between development and man himself.”5

So we have a situation where people are trying to do good, but using evil means to accomplish it. There is nothing more dangerous than a do-gooder without a strong moral foundation. Examples of this would include world population conferences in which Catholics and Muslims are considered backwards, retrogressive, for not “getting with” our new age, and its technological solutions of abortion and contraception. Many want to silence these groups. This deification of technology is what Pope John Paul elsewhere calls “scientism”6 where science and the capabilities it develops take precedence over morality.

What are the roots of this contradiction?

The roots of this contradiction are many fold:

1. An overemphasized subjectivity—persons have rights only if they have autonomy and have gone beyond a state of total dependence on others. This cannot be reconciled with the humanitarian view that the human person “is not to be used.” The concern for human rights implies that persons, unlike animals and things, should not come under domination of others.

2. The mentality which equates personal dignity with capacity for perceptible communication. In this view, there is no room for the weak, such as the dying or the unborn, or anyone who is radically dependent on others and can only communicate by the silent sharing of affection.

3. Force becomes the criterion for choice in society. However, in a state ruled by law, “reasons of force” should be replaced by the “force of reason.”

4. An understanding of freedom which exalts the individual in an absolute way, thus subverting solidarity and love. True, the taking of life of the unborn or the elderly is sometimes the result of a mistaken altruism and compassion. But, this betrays a concept of freedom which is individualistic and ends in being merely a freedom of the strong, against the weak who must submit.

We are our brother’s keeper! “God entrusts us to one another.” It is in this context that we are given freedom, one which has a relational dimension. Absolute, individualistic freedom contradicts the meaning and dignity of freedom.7

This distorted freedom destroys itself and other persons when it is no longer linked to the truth. When freedom, by trying to free itself from tradition and authority, shuts out objective and universal truth, which is the basis for personal and social life, then the truth about good and evil is no longer the reference point for choices. Only one’s subjective opinion, his selfish interests and whims become the criterion for choosing.8

Later the pope will give examples of such universal truth, including the following: “human life, as a gift of God, is sacred and inviolable.”9 Thus, we might add, any attack on human life at any stage is an attack on humanity because is degrades all of humanity, those destroyed and those destroying.

Distortion of freedom
If promotion of the self is seen as complete autonomy, people become alienated from one another. Everyone else is seen as an enemy, from whom we must defend ourselves. There are no common values or binding truths, so society rests on complete relativism. Everything becomes negotiable, even the most fundamental of rights, that to life.10

Rights become subject to the will of the strong. Thus, democracy tends toward totalitarianism. The State becomes a tyrant, takes upon itself the right to dispose of lives of the weakest and most defenseless. The Democratic ideal, which depends on safeguarding the dignity of each human person, is betrayed in its foundations. In such a case the disintegration of the State has begun already.

To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom: “Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin” (John 8:34).11

One of the cornerstone’s of the holy father’s philosophy is solidarity. All mankind is one, we are brothers and sisters, we must stand together. This, of course, is one of the main things which was so harmful to communism. It is based on a sound theological principle, that of the person. Briefly, this theology is as follows. Because the persons of the Trinity are defined in terms of relation, we, in the image of the Trinity, are defined, are fulfilled, only in relation to others. Thus, our relationships, with God and others, are the most important things for our happiness. As such, solidarity is fundamental to human flourishing.

The turning from God — the deepest root of the culture of death
Secularism, the rejection of God, is an underlying cause of this drift into a culture of death. A cycle is put into play: “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.”12

Without God, we tend to fall into that pessimistic “Animal House” mentality, or an MTV mentality. When we forget we have been created for a marriage with God (Isa. 62), and therefore have a lofty destiny, we tend to think, “We’re no good anyway. We may as well let it all hang out. What’s the difference what we do? Why are these stuffy people so concerned about their behavior, their dignity?” It is a self-alienating admission of futility, rejecting the possibility, at least implicitly, of genuine human virtue.

Without God, man cannot comprehend himself
Our lives become unintelligible, as Vatican II proclaimed (Gaudium et Spes, n. 36), when God is forgotten. We see ourselves as a mere “living being,” a “thing,” no longer “mysteriously different” from other things, no longer grasping the transcendent, or surpassing, nature of his “existence as man.” Thus, his life is not seen as a marvelous gift of God, sacred, something to be cared for and even venerated. Life is viewed as just a “thing,” one’s “exclusive property,” which he may control and manipulate.13

Thus, man is concerned not with questioning the meaning of his existence, but only with “doing,” and by the use of technology, tries to program, control and dominate both birth and death. Birth and death become things to be possessed or rejected, not “primary experiences” to be lived.14

Nature is not mother (mater) but matter (materia) to manipulated. A kind of scientism about nature evolves. Rejected is the concept that there is a truth of creation to be acknowledged, a plan for life, established by God, which must be honored. In other words, the human person must step back in the face of certain sacred aspects of nature, for example, life and the giving of life, and not manipulate these things as if they were mere profane elements of nature.15

There is an opposite phenomenon which occurs in reaction to this “freedom without law,” and that is a natural “law without freedom” where nature is in a sense “divinized” and man may never interfere with nature. There is a kind of fear of freedom in this opposite extreme which results from a misunderstanding of nature’s dependence on the Creator’s plan.16

The Christian approach to nature is one of dialogue. Many defects of nature can be corrected such as by medicine or by the use of exterior aids like glasses or hearing aids. However, there are limits to what science can accomplish, both physical limits and moral, because human nature involves not only the physical aspects of the person but every aspect, spiritual, psychological and physical. There is a kind of “physicalism” in the scientific view that if man can improve his situation by technology, he may do so, even if it involves the violation of human life in its weakest elements.

Thus, we have the phenomenon, widespread today, of the denial of natural law. Everything is being redefined, including human nature. It is difficult to speak of the fulfillment of the human person if there is no acknowledgment that man has a nature, a consistent way of pursuing the good which fulfills him. This is why the holy father reiterated the importance of natural law in Veritatis Splendor.

“By living ‘as if God did not exist,’ says the holy father, “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.”17 To put it in modern terms, we might say it is difficult to understand the product, if we fail to read the manufacturer’s operating instructions.

Practical materialism
What ensues is a practical materialism, which leads to individualism, utilitarianism and hedonism. John Paul quotes St. Paul: “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). “Having” supercedes “being,” only our material well-being counts. “Quality of life” is seen as economic efficiency, extreme consumerism, physical beauty.18

This is what might be called the People Magazine syndrome, where those with fame and money and beauty are the heroes, the gods, if you will, of this world. Those who do not have these things, can at least vicariously enjoy them by idolizing those who do. The deeper values, spiritual, religious, and personal relationships, as the pope points out, are neglected.

This was the mentality at work in the cultural canonization of Lady Diana, who was more respectable than Carmen Electra or Jennifer Lopez, because she involved herself in so many charitable causes. People delighted in her beauty, her royalty, her exciting life, because it seemed like such a materially delightful existence. The sadness of her life was ignored.

Something analogous was at work when O. J. Simpson was trying to run from the police in his SUV. Some were chanting, “Run, O. J., run.” Never mind that he was strongly suspected of having killed a person. He was rich, famous, handsome, and a former football star. What else matters? This is the unfortunate attitude of some people.

The fascination with beauty, wealth, fame, and anything sensational, I believe, is the result of a culture suffering from ennui, that annoying boredom stemming from overstimulation. We are so used to all sorts of stimulation, we can’t bear a dull moment.

I used to teach at a month-long retreat/ workshop for young people in the summer. It would involve Mass, rosary, holy hour of adoration and several classes on the faith each day–but no television. During the first week the retreatants would be climbing the walls. Some left, they were so bored. Then, by the second week they began to enjoy it. By the end of the third week they were lamenting that there was only a week left. They underwent withdrawal from the stimulations of the world in three weeks.

Suffering, in this milieu, is to be avoided at all costs. When it cannot be avoided and the hope of better times in the future are lacking, the temptation to suicide is strong.

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.19

Sex is depersonalized and exploited. Rather than being the sign, place and language of love, the mutual gift of married persons, in all its richness, it becomes the occasion for self-assertion, and selfish fulfilling of personal desires and instincts. (Here he is arguing against the dualism of the sexual revolution.) Procreation becomes the enemy in sexuality. Or, it is welcomed as something to have “at all costs” (i.e., through artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization), not as the fruit and sign of mutual love.20

This materialism impoverishes personal relations. Those harmed the most are women, children, the sick and suffering and the elderly. People are valued not for what they are, but for what they “have, do and produce.” This is the supremacy of the strong over the weak.21

Fundamental to the hedonistic view of life is the laissez-faire approach to sex. In fact, this is a powerful mover of the culture of death. Dale Vree, editor of New Oxford Review, described a telling incident on this matter in an article in the National Catholic Register. He was involved in a pre-planned living room discussion in the late 1980s on the subject of abortion in which just under half the people were pro-life, the same number were pro-choice to abort, and several were undecided. The pro-choicers, which included some famous intellectuals, did not focus on when life began or the rape and incest argument but on a woman’s civil liberty being indispensable to her economic opportunity.

One of the pro-lifers pointed out that the choice was made when the woman agreed to have sex. This slowed the pro-choicer’s argument considerably. But later on, one of them blurted out a key bit of philosophy, when he said: “We’re pro-sex and you’re anti-sex.” Although the undecideds pointed out that the so-called “pro-sex” people in wanting unlimited sex in both type and number were actually for the debasement and trivialization of sex, the “pro-sex” group was unmovable.22

According to Vree, the pro-choice side made it quite clear that they were committed to the sexual revolution, and that it would wither without the insurance of abortion. Here are the closing remarks of Mr. Vree’s article:

It is revealing, isn’t it? If these highly articulate pro-choicers were indicative, an honest exchange shows that pro-choicers aren’t so much animated by liberty and opportunity (“choice”) or compassion (“the hard cases”) or science (“science can’t tell us when life begins”) as they are by loose sex.

It’s also tragic, for to make sex cheap is to make life cheap as well.23
The sexual revolution is surely fundamental to the culture of death, at least in the West.

The Gospel of Life: Its core; its consequences; its foundation
What is the core of this Gospel? The proclamation of a living God, who calls us to intimate union with him and gives us the certain hope of eternal life.

It is the affirmation of the inseparable connection between the person, his life and his bodiliness. It is the presentation of human life as a life of relationship, a gift of God, the fruit and sign of his love. It is the proclamation that Jesus has a unique relationship with every person, which enables us to see in every human face the face of Christ. It is the call for a “sincere gift of self” as the fullest way to realize our personal freedom.24

What are the consequences of this Gospel? The pope sums them up as follows: “human life, as a gift of God, is sacred and inviolable. For this reason procured abortion and euthanasia are absolutely unacceptable. Not only must human life not be taken, but it must be protected with loving concern.”25

Then the holy father speaks of the foundation of this Gospel, namely, love.

The meaning of life is found in giving and receiving love, and in this light human sexuality and procreation reach their true and full significance. Love also gives meaning to suffering and death; despite the mystery which surrounds them, they can become saving events. Respect for life requires that science and technology should always be at the service of man and his integral development. Society as a whole must respect, defend and promote the dignity of every human person, at every moment and in every condition of that person’s life.26

This is the Gospel of Life, and the way to peace and happiness for all mankind.

Promoting the Gospel of Life in our world
Pope John Paul proposes that we, as believers, should bring the Gospel of Life to every person and make it permeate all of society. Every believer should arm himself/herself with “sound bytes” based on Evangelium vitae to be ready to defend life whenever the occasion arises. Here are some examples we might consider:

• We believe in human rights for every human being, including babies in the womb.
• When we cheapen sex, we cheapen life, including our own.
• Scientific advances are great, but not if they make us selfish.
• Freedom of the strong over the weak [unborn, elderly] is un-American.
• Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness should be for the preborn too.
• The culture of life is a culture of love.
• It’s not just babies we want to save; it’s the soul of America.

Another systematic way to promote the culture of life would be through our prayers, especially the Sunday prayer of the faithful. The following petitions might be used:

• For our country, that we will uphold the human rights of all human beings, especially the weak, the unborn and the elderly . . .
• For a re-awakening to the dignity and sacredness of sex, and the human life which it brings forth . . .
• That those families with a serious need to delay having children will choose natural birth regulation over contraception . . .
• That women with problem pregnancies will seek the gentle support of Gabriel Project volunteers, and love the child within them
• That mankind will never claim the right to dispose of innocent human life, at any stage . . .
• That we all will be witnesses to the value of chastity as a foundation for the culture of life . . .
• That love will be preferred to “choice” when it comes to children in the womb . . .
• That science and technology will always serve the good of mankind, rather than our moral degradation . . .
• That hedonism, utilitarianism, and materialism will never be accepted as American values . . .
• That freedom of the strong will never destroy the freedom of the weak, the unborn or the elderly . . .
• That America and the world will re-discover God, his love for man, and his Gospel of life . . .

In short, we must proclaim the Gospel of Life by emphasizing the importance of solidarity and love over selfishness; of discovering our nature and what fulfills the human person, rather than trying to create these; of chastity as a foundation of love, and of respect for life; and of upholding the rights of all, no matter how small or weak.

It took almost forty years for the “Lublin Project” to strike a powerful blow against communism. With our great potential for communications today, perhaps the “Culture of Life” project of Pope John Paul II, will bear fruit in our world more quickly. For this to happen it will require professors, priests, religious, bishops and teachers in general to study carefully Evangelium vitae and draw out the philosophical foundations proposed by the pope and explain them to the people of the world. Once these things are understood by enough people, by God’s grace, we will come to a new “Culture of Life.”

End Notes

2 Evangelium Vitae, n. 18.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
6 Fides et ratio, n. 88: “Another threat to be reckoned with is scientism. This is the philosophical notion which refuses to admit the validity of forms of knowledge other than those of the positive sciences; and it relegates religious, theological, ethical and aesthetic knowledge to the realm of mere fantasy. In the past, the same idea emerged in positivism and neo-positivism, which considered metaphysical statements to be meaningless. Critical epistemology has discredited such a claim, but now we see it revived in the new guise of scientism, which dismisses values as mere products of the emotions and rejects the notion of being in order to clear the way for pure and simple facticity. Science would thus be poised to dominate all aspects of human life through technological progress.”
7 EV n. 19.
8 EV n. 19.
9 EV n. 81.
10 EV n. 20.
11 EV n. 20.
12 EV n. 21.
13 EV n. 22.
14 EV n. 22.
15 EV n. 22.
16 EV n. 22.
17 EV n. 22.
18 EV n. 23.
19 EV n. 23.
20 EV n. 23.
21 EV n. 23.
22 Dale Vree, “An argument for abortion,” National Catholic Register, 4 June 1989.
23 Ibid.
24 EV n. 81.
25 EV n. 81.
26 EV n. 81.

Reverend Thomas G. Morrow has a doctorate in Sacred Theology from the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family. His book, Saints for Families, (Emmaus Road), a compilation of 27 lives of the saints appropriate for family reading time, is expected in 2002. He is a parochial vicar at St. Catherine Laboure Parish in Wheaton, Md. His published booklets and leaflets can be seen at www.cfalive.org. His last article in HPR appeared in January 2002.