When we are striving to protect life in the name of the Gospel today it is urgently necessary to make sure that our efforts be coherent in all possible situations wherever life is fragile. The issues of the defense of life belong to the more general area of justice - since the right to life itself in fact means that all living should receive what due to them in order to realize their potentialities. If we are to be coherent, consistent and credible we need to stand up for justice in all aspects of it, in issues of social justice, peace and to protect life of all and in every form of it.
It means that the defense of life of the unborn and the dying in our society are just two (although very important) of the many issues of the wider area of right to life ethics, as right to proper food, shelter, water, health care, sanitation and basic safety for all in the entire world. While abortion and euthanasia is an attack on innocent life so is modern warfare that takes away and renders terrible the life of people in countries ravaged by it and takes away the resources of all parties that could be used for promoting and nurturing life.
It cannot be stressed enough that defense of life is more than the questions of protecting our unborn babies and the dying in our hospitals. The protection of life at its beginning and its end is crucial part of protecting human life all the way, in every phase of it, in all parts of society and everywhere. The life and well-being of children, youth, adults and elderly, men and women, all should be equally precious and deserves special protection. It is just that the right of life be upheld and not only in our own society but also elsewhere on the earth, and for the white, for the brown, for the black, for the red and for all peoples. The value of human life is independent of ethnicity, religion or color of the skin in God’s mind. The renewed unity of humanity is represented in the scene of Pentecost as described in the Acts of Apostles, when the Holy Spirit brought together in understanding people “from every nation under heaven” (cf. Acts 2:5-11) from an impressive list of places from all the then-known continents. This scene maybe only prefigures the future where the Holy Spirit is trying to lead us, which is becoming reality under our eyes.
Speaking to the bishops on his recent visit to the US, Benedict XVI posed the question about an authentic witness of our faith in Christ and in the Gospel of life:
This leads me to ask how, in the twenty-first century, a bishop can best fulfill the call to “make all things new in Christ, our hope”? How can he lead his people to “an encounter with the living God”, the source of that life-transforming hope of which the Gospel speaks (cf. Spe Salvi, 4)?
Then he pointed to the question about the unity between the professed faith and the everyday practice in all areas of life:
Is it consistent to profess our beliefs in church on Sunday, and then during the week to promote business practices or medical procedures contrary to those beliefs? Is it consistent for practicing Catholics to ignore or exploit the poor and the marginalized, to promote sexual behavior contrary to Catholic moral teaching, or to adopt positions that contradict the right to life of every human being from conception to natural death? Any tendency to treat religion as a private matter must be resisted. Only when their faith permeates every aspect of their lives do Christians become truly open to the transforming power of the Gospel. (Vespers and meeting with the Bishops of US in the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C. Wednesday, 16 April 2008
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/april/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20080416_bishops-usa_en.html, emphasis mine)
Notice that the Pope gave equal emphasis to issues of social justice (in strict sense) and to issues of medical and sexual morality (which as we tried to show above also belong to justice in full sense). So we could continue the questions: is it consistent for Catholics to protect life at conception and in the same time promote conflicts that threaten the life of many? Is it consistent to strive for business success and affluent lifestyle while many human beings do not have access to the minimum necessary for sustaining life? Is it consistent with our faith to divide humanity in “us” - for whom we care and value - and in “them” – who does not count as much? Is it consistent with the Gospel of Christ to have different scales of values for “us” and “them”, to express with our choices that “their” life worth less then “ours” even if we profess in words that all are equal?
Pentecost, 2008
