|
I had made a resolution sometime ago that should I have the opportunity to address a French-speaking audience on the subject of pro-life, I would dedicate my remarks to a very courageous French pro-life leader and internationally recognized geneticist, Dr. Jérôme Lejuene. His influence was great on both sides of the Atlantic, before his death several years ago.
I well remember my last long conversation with Jérôme. He had just arrived from Paris to deliver a series of lectures in Washington at the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family on the relationship between ethics and science. As we sat in my living room sipping a beer, neither of us knew of the cancer that would too soon take his life. Jérôme was no stranger to Washington, having first come to the city more than 30 years earlier to receive a special recognition at the White House from President John F. Kennedy for the remarkable feat of discovering the chromosome disorder which results in Down Syndrome.
Having determined the cause of Down Syndrome, Jérôme proceeded to do what came so naturally to him. He sought to help the victims of the disorder; it would never have occurred to him to eliminate them. Since the time of his historic discovery, he had devoted his life to finding a cure or treatment for the condition. Indeed, it was hard to find him outside of Paris for more than three or four days since he could not stand to be away from his young patients. We spoke about the progress he was making in their treatment.
We also spoke about the role of the Catholic Church in encouraging ethics in scientific research, and in particular in the practice of medicine. Jérôme described his idea for a new committee at the Vatican that would study such questions—an idea Pope John Paul II would make a reality by creating the Pontifical Academy for Life. The pope had intended to name Jérôme as the first president of the Academy, but Jérôme died before that could be done. Indeed the pope—whose interest in matters of science is clear from his statements on the Galileo controversy and on evolution—had a long working relationship with Dr. Lejeune.
They shared not only a devotion to questions of faith, ethics and science, but also a deep concern for the sick, the handicapped and the suffering.
It was from this perspective that Lejeune had become—often reluctantly, because of commitments to his patients—an advocate for life in the French debate on abortion and euthanasia. It was Lejeune who years ago termed the abortifacient drug RU-486, "the world's first human pesticide," and publicly opposed the French pharmaceutical firm that produced it.
I visited Jérôme in his apartment in Paris only once. It was during a visit to France to meet with the senior executives of that French pharmaceutical firm to urge them to stop the manufacture of RU-486 and to explain how strongly we would oppose its introduction in North America.
Those who know just how much the pope values friendship—even friends he may not have seen for decades—were not surprised when he decided that on the way to the 1997 World Youth Day in Paris he would take a few moments for a private visit to Jérôme's grave site. But what was a surprise to many was that the pope's visit to the grave of an old friend would evoke outrage on the part of France's socialist party, which issued an extraordinary rebuke to the pope upon his arrival in France.
This anti-Catholic tradition has roots that go back to Rousseau and the French Revolution. This tradition tends to depict every significant human event as fundamentally political. Thus any personal or cultural action—even a visit to a friend's grave—is viewed primarily as political. That is why, for all their talk of tolerance—and especially religious tolerance—socialists describe even personal acts which do not conform to their secular world view as acts of "intolerance."
This secular way of looking at life has also radically changed the way French culture looks at the institutions of marriage and family. In this view women are fully liberated only when they are "free" from the burden of children and, like men, are fully integrated into the work economy outside the home.
Thus, the absolute control of women's fertility made possible by discretionary abortion is an absolute social and political necessity because it is only through such absolute control that women can be free from the burden of children and can plan uninterrupted careers outside the home. And thus, in this scenario, abortion is transformed from "an unspeakable crime" to a basic human right.
The refusal of Dr. Lejeune—among other prominent French citizens—to accept the legalization of abortion which took place in France in 1975 was portrayed by his critics as another form of "intolerance."
Perhaps all of this background puts into better perspective the curious statement of the French socialist party spokesman who—sounding like a functionary in the former Soviet Union—declared: "The Pope is welcome in France as long as he doesn't meddle in the internal affairs of the republic."
Still it is difficult to understand why the pope's expression of friendship, at a grave 40 miles outside Paris, should provoke such a reaction—unless it was used as the pretext for a larger confrontation with the Catholic Church; a confrontation that continues to this day in the controversy over whether the new European Constitution will recognize in some fashion the Christian heritage of Europe.
These critics of the pope insist today that Europe began only in the 18th century with the Enlightenment and its rejection of Christianity. They understand clearly that this pope has issued a challenge. But his challenge was not coming to France for World Youth Day, nor was the challenge his remembrance of his friend. This pope's challenge was made nearly 26 years ago when he stepped onto the balcony of St. Peter's Basilica and told the world: "Do not be afraid….Open wide the doors to Christ."
At the close of the second millennium, that message brought historic change throughout Europe and the Soviet Union. At the beginning of the third millennium it is still a message that speaks to a promising future.
Our future here in North America is a different one than that imagined by the French critics of the pope. The heritage of this continent is not precisely the same as that of Europe. We are right to call this continent a new world because it is "new" in this fundamental sense—from the first moments its exploration and its encounter with European culture was an encounter with the Christian Gospel. This is a new world because of the "newness" of the Gospel.
This is the legacy of Blessed François de Laval, your first Bishop, and of so many missionaries who devoted their lives to the evangelization of this continent and its culture. Because of this legacy North America retains the prospect of a different future. North America is still a place that is not afraid to keep its doors open wide. It is still a place where we may think earnestly of the possibility of building a culture of life where respect is shown for the dignity of each person.
Because of Bishop de Laval, Marie of the Incarnation and especially John de Brebeuf, Isaac Jogues, Gabriel Lalemant and others, no one can ever say to the pope or to any Catholic "do not meddle in the internal affairs" of this place. Their struggle and their sacrifice have purchased that right. Their efforts have forever united the Gospel with the destiny of this land.
Next year we will celebrate the tenth anniversary of one of the most important documents written by Pope John Paul II during his long pontificate. I believe it is also one of the most important moral testimonies of the twentieth century—his encyclical on the Gospel of Life, Evangelium Vitae. It is one of his most important documents because in it he speaks clearly to the men and women of our time about the struggle between the "culture of life" and the "culture of death."
In this encyclical the pope states clearly the way that is open for us now to build this culture of life. He begins by confronting the depth of the cultural crisis we face. He writes, "In seeking the deepest roots of the struggle between the 'culture of life' and the 'culture of death'…. We have to go to the heart of the tragedy being experienced by modern man: the eclipse of the sense of God and of man, typical of a social and cultural climate dominated by secularism, which, with its ubiquitous tentacles, succeeds at times in putting Christian communities themselves to the test. Those who allow themselves to be influenced by this climate easily fall into a sad vicious circle: When the sense of God is lost, there is also a tendency to lose the sense of man, of his dignity and his life; in turn, the systematic violation of the moral law, especially in the serious matter of respect for human life and its dignity, produces a kind of progressive darkening of the capacity to discern God's living and saving presence" (21).
This cultural assault has put the Christian communities to the "test." The test we are facing today is whether Catholics can be what we are called to be in Evangelium vitae, the "people of life and the people for life."
We are challenged to witness to the Gospel truth of the "incomparable value of every human person" (2) and to do so in a way that will "respect, protect, love and serve every human life" (5). Our challenge is to do this not only in those instances where the secular culture might agree, but in precisely those instances where the secular culture sees no need of such service; for example, in saving the "inconvenient" unborn child.
This is the prophetic witness to which the Christian community as the "people of life" is called. And I use the term "witness" to emphasize that this challenge goes beyond the articulation of a moral truth or a set of moral truths. It includes the steadfast determination to live these truths in such a manner as to be a true witness.
The people of life and the people for life travel a path directed toward building a culture of life. This is the destiny to which we are all called because it is the only destiny worthy of a human being and a human community. And only a culture of life is worthy of a people so dedicated to the value of every human life.
In this way the people of life are also a people dedicated to the sanctuary of life—the family. Here as well, it cannot serve the cause of human dignity to pretend—as some do—that the family can truly be a sanctuary of life outside of the design for it given by the Creator. And that is a design that is etched by that same Creator into each human heart and one that alone can authentically fulfill the vocation to love.
Therefore the defense of the authentic family and the role of marriage are fundamental to the people of life since "the role of the family in building a culture of life is decisive and irreplaceable" (92).
Finally, as the pope explains in Evangelium vitae, "The Gospel of life is for the whole of human society; to be actively pro-life is to contribute to the renewal of society through the promotion of the common good" (101). At the very least this must mean that by promoting a culture of life, the people of life are not promoting a narrow sectarian agenda but are working for the common good of society.
Therefore we should welcome all those who are committed to recognizing the unsurpassed value of every human life and who are willing to join us in serving human life.
Before moving to New Haven in the late 1990s I served for nearly a decade as a member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights. During that time I heard testimony from hundreds of individuals about the threats to human dignity and human rights that strain the fabric of so many communities.
In one way of the other, these witnesses echoed the words of a young Hispanic woman I met in south central Los Angeles several days after the 1992 riots there. She said, "Why can't we stop hating and just see each other as human beings?"
Government doesn't have the answer to this question.
If there is to be an enduring answer to that young woman's question, then it must come from the moral and religious leaders of our communities. As President Bush stated in his address to our international convention last month, "When a person changes their heart, they change their habits. Government is not good at changing hearts. The Almighty God is good at changing hearts."
And it is precisely here that Evangelium vitae gives us the precepts of leadership we need to advance the general good of society.
In the encyclical the pope maintains that the first step in regaining a moral consensus in society must be to recognize the equal dignity of every human being regardless of age, condition or race. This is especially true, he says of the poor, the weak and the defenseless.
Second, he maintains that it is always a violation of human dignity to treat a person like an instrument or means to an end. Every person must be seen as worthy in himself and never as an object of manipulation.
Third, the pope urges us to understand that the deliberate killing of an innocent human being, whatever the circumstances, is always morally wrong.
Some may think it contradictory to consider the teaching of the Catholic Church on abortion as offering hope in building social consensus. After all, abortion is one of the most divisive issues in our time. Certainly not everyone agrees with the pope on issues such as abortion and euthanasia. But the vision expressed in Evangelium vitae of building a new culture of life offers the possibility for a new dialogue that places a priority upon human dignity, community and service to others.
That is a challenge which no society can ignore and it is a challenge that is thoroughly essential to the promotion of the common good of all. "To be actively pro-life is to contribute to the renewal of society." Our commitment to this work of renewal is one to which we will always remain steadfast. The Knights of Columbus is proud to be working with you in this cause for life.
|
