In the introduction to Evangelium vitae John Paul II makes a striking analogy between the worker question, which more than a century ago was addressed in Pope Leo XIII’s memorable Encyclical Rerum novarum, and the bioethical question, dealt with in the new papal document. "Just as a century ago it was the working classes which were oppressed in their fundamental rights, and the Church very courageously came to their defence by proclaiming the sacrosanct rights of the worker as a person, so now, when another category of persons is being oppressed in the fundamental right to life, the Church feels in duty bound to speak out with the same courage on behalf of those who have no voice. Hers is always the evangelical cry in defence of the world's poor, those who are threatened and despised and whose human rights are violated" (n. 5). 

In the wake of the Church’s social teaching

The unusual and even disconcerting parallel, in fact, sheds light on the new Encyclical and offers a decisive key to its interpretation. Contrary to what hasty and superficial readers have stated, Evangelium vitae is not a document on sexual morality nor merely a document on personal ethics. It is instead a text of great relevance for social morality, which follows in the wake of the Church's social teaching, inaugurated in modern times by Pope Leo's Encyclical. In line with this tradition, it indicates the issues of respect for life, such as abortion, experimentation on embryos and euthanasia, as the "new boundaries" of the social question. Thus it broadens horizons further and deepens principles on which true democracy and peace may be founded. Indeed, "the Gospel of life is for the whole of human society" (n. 101). 

The gradual broadening of horizons in the Church's social teaching can be traced in the passage from the worker question (Rerum novarum) to the social question (Quadragesimo anno), from problems of peace and human rights (Pacem in terris and Mater et Magistra) to those on international development (Populorum progressio). A new limit has now been reached with the theme of the sacred and inviolable right to life of the unborn child, of the elderly or seriously ill. Indeed, human life is "an indivisible good. We need then to 'show care' for all life and for the life of everyone. Indeed, at an even deeper level, we need to go to the very roots of life and love" (n. 87). 

A thorough examination of principles is undertaken in the ever more consistent affirmation of the individual's primacy and dignity, vindicating the dimension of relationships and solidarity in human freedom. Just as the focus of the economy must not be capital but the person and his work (Laborem exercens) solidarity must be the rule in social relations (Sollicitudo rei socialis). In Evangelium vitae, these principles are taken as prerogatives of the human person per se, independently of any consideration of utility, efficiency, stage of development and health, or capacity for expression. From conception to the natural end of his life, the human being must be accepted and respected as a person Therefore "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" (n. 60). And this is particularly the case in situations of frailty and weakness, when, defenceless and threatened, he needs everyone's help. The Encyclical points out that "upon the recognition of this right, every human community and the political community itself are founded" (n. 2). 

The bioethical issue as a social issue 

The Magisterium's intervention in the field of bioethics is explained more than once (nn. 4 and 11) by the indication of several specific characteristics of the threats to life in today's social and cultural context If throughout history, in different ways and circumstances, man's life has always been and continues to be threatened, today attacks on life are emerging with new features, introducing original dimensions and new challenges. The problems pertaining to abortion, experiments on embryos and euthanasia have three distinctive characteristics. Firstly, at the level of public opinion influenced by far-reaching ideological campaigns, these attacks on life tend to be seen as "rights of individual freedom". Secondly, they are socially legitimized because they are carried out in medical practice: the scientific context and the moral authority of the health service are largely sufficient, in the eyes of many, to make them acceptable, indeed beyond dispute. Lastly, the State's juridical norms give these practices the benefit of law, approved by the majority and therefore dispense from further scruples of conscience.

At the root of what the Holy Father does not hesitate to call "a culture of death" (n. 24), which threatens man and civilization, is a deep cultural crisis whose key notes are materialism and individualism. The only criterion that counts thus becomes the "quality of life", interpreted primarily or exclusively as economic efficiency, inordinate consumerism, physical beauty and pleasure, while neglecting or denying the deeper dimensions-interpersonal, spiritual and religious-of existence (cf. n. 23). Thus having becomes more important than being, pleasure becomes the only reasonable goal to pursue, suffering is regarded as useless or threatening, while any sacrifice for others appears unjustified. On the other hand, individualism extols the absolute autonomy of each individual's freedom as the only criterion for choice, imprisons the individual within the narrow circle of his own interests, while eliminating fundamental interpersonal relationships (n. 19). Having separated the individual's good from intrinsic reference to the common good, the question of respect for life is also "privatized". Society is conceived merely as a mass of individuals, who live together "on the shifting sands of complete relativism" where "everything is negotiable, everything is open to bargaining" (n. 20). Implicit in all this is an eclipse of the sense of God, because "when the sense of God is lost, there is also a tendency to lose the sense of man" (n. 21). 

But the apparent legality of formal respect for each one's freedom actually leaves the powerful with a free hand and deprives weak life of all protection. Veritable "structures of sin" against life (nn. 12 and 24) are created and reinforced. When another asks for sacrifice, generous dedication, disinterested care and renunciation, when his presence calls into question material well-being and demands reformulation of life projects, then he is considered a nuisance to be eliminated. Society refuses to accept life that requires greater sacrifices: children, the elderly, the handicapped. The society of the healthy, the strong, the young, the efficient, is inhospitable to the sick, the weak, the old, the disabled. Our cities conceived for the former, "risk becoming societies of people who are rejected marginalized, uprooted and oppressed' (n. 18): anti-life and anti-solidarity cities. 

This has macroscopic consequences for international relations, where serious demographic problems are sometimes treated with a mentality prejudicially hostile to life, giving rise to even graver oppression and injustice. Instead of promoting development in solidarity, equal division of resources, satisfactory social and family policies and an education that respects personal values, antibirth practices are implemented which have recourse to any means even making their acceptance a condition of economic aid (n. 16). 

The picture drawn by the Encyclical might seem excessively grim and alarming. In fact, recalling several facts that some would like to forget, it draws attention to a specific dimension of the bioethical issues that humanity must face. The power over life made possible by new medical technologies, and which individualistic ideologies claim as an individual right, is closely linked to a social project. Whenever the inviolable dignity of the life of every person is denied, then democracy, violated in its dimensions of justice and solidarity, would be well on the way to a totalitarianism in which the abuse of the weak by the powerful would be permissible. 

The rights of the person, the basis of social justice

One of the basic principles of the Church's social teaching is that of the primacy of the individual over society and the State (cf. Rerum novarum; Centesimus annus, n. 6). The human person every human person, created in the image and likeness of God and called to a unique and unrepeatable relationship of dialogue with him, is an end in and for himself. Each has his own right (that is as a person) to the recognition of his dignity, which metaphysically precedes his membership in a community. In the context of creation, "the human person comes first": society is for man and not man for society. Therefore the main task of every public authority is to safeguard the basic rights of the individual, which innately belong to him and which every positive law must guarantee (cf. Pacem in terris; Centesimus annus, n. 47; Evangelium vitae, n. 71). 

The modern democratic movement is essentially the effort to recognize the equal dignity of all persons, regardless of differences of race, sex, age, religion, culture, or social condition. The constitutional charters of democratic States, and especially the Universal Declaration of Human Rights approved by the UN in 1948, have "declared" this elementary truth. Consequently there is no question of "concession" or "attribution", subject to decisions of higher authorities or parliamentary majorities. Now, the Encyclical Evangelium vitae denounces the "surprising contradiction" between the democratic ideal and the culture of human rights, and laws that deny the right to life, especially at the most crucial stages in existence such as birth and death (cf. n. 18). When democracy becomes detached from an objective moral anchor and is reduced to the purely formal rule of the majority, the door is open to all abuse of power by the stronger. It risks becoming "an empty word" (n. 70), masking an unbridled totalitarianism.

For a future of social justice it is therefore necessary "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" (n. 71). The first, most basic of these values is the "sacred and inviolable" right of each innocent human being to life. For this reason, the commandment "You shall not kill" is itself the content of God's original covenant with humanity after the purifying punishment of the flood (Gn 9:5-6). It was placed by the Lord at the heart of the Covenant with his People at Sinai (Ex 20:16; Dt 5:17). In the New Testament Jesus not only confirmed this commandment as the priority to be observed in order to enter into life (cf. Mt 19:16-18), but he also demonstrated its positive value (Mt 5:21f.), which concerns the heart and embraces all even to loving one's enemies (Mt 5:44). Thus "only when people are open to the fullness of the truth about God, man and history will the words 'You shall not kill' shine forth once more as a good for man in himself and in his relations with others" (n. 48). The "Gospel of life" proclaimed by the Church therefore also preserves those basic truths of social justice which are essential for public life and which man's reason should also recognize. 

The principle of solidarity and defence of the weakest

Another essential principle of social doctrine is that of solidarity with the poorest, the object of Jesus' special preference. In more recent terms, it has become "a preferential option for the poor", as "a special form of primacy in the exercise of Christian charity" (cf. Sollicitudo rei socialis, n. 42; Centesimus annus, n. 11). 

In fact, if justice is to be concretely practiced and not merely stated at an abstract and formal level, then priority attention should be paid to those who live in underprivileged conditions. Evangelium vitae recalls that, if once it was primarily the "working classes" who lacked a voice and whose basic right to life was threatened and despised, today this applies to other categories of people: unborn babies, the elderly and the terminally ill. 

New areas for solidarity and new ways of implementing the preferential option for the poor are open to Christian charity. New attention and new legal, social and financial protection are open to legislators and politicians, who wish to achieve an authentic community worthy of man (n. 101). "It is therefore a service of love which we are all committed to ensure to our neighbour, that his or her life may be always defended and promoted, especially when it is weak or threatened. It is not only a personal but a social concern which we must all foster: a concern to make unconditional respect for human life the foundation of a renewed society" (n. 77).

The subject of social action: "the people of life" 

The Church's social teaching is not merely a declaration of principles, but also the formulation of judgements and indications to guidelines for action (cf. Libertatis conscientia, n. 72). It calls for concrete implementation involving the life of individuals and communities. This is why it requires the identification of a subject of action. John Paul II identifies this subject with a new and evocative name: "the people of life" (nn. 6 and 79). It is a question of the people who, accepting that Gospel of life which coincides with the proclamation of the person of Jesus himself (n. 29), is not only transformed and saved, but also equipped for a mission to society overall. 

The family above all must be cast as the protagonist in this social renewal (nn. 92-94). In the Creator's plan, it is in fact the "sanctuary of life", the place of acceptance, education and nurturing of all life, especially when it is weak, infirm or newborn. Society must recognize the family's central role in promoting the dignity of human life, sustaining it and helping it in its natural and irreplaceable task. 

In the face of the threats to human life which are looming on the horizon, the Encyclical Evangelium vitae has been able to discern the dimensions of a radical challenge to society. Just as Leo XIII in Rerum novarum realized the "new things" which were emerging 100 years ago and interpreted them as signs of the times in the light of the enduring principles of human dignity, John Paul II has now shed light on the bioethical question with the Gospel of life, which shines forth in Christ, who
is the same, yesterday, today and forever.