The Sanctity of Life and God's Love

From Summa Bergania

by David Bergan — April 25, 2001

Many of the important controversial social issues today deal with choosing life or death in one form or another. Capital punishment, abortion, euthanasia, pacifism, and animal rights all question whether in some cases it is moral, or at least justifiable, to kill another living thing. On each of these topics there is a plethora of arguments offered in favor of either side. However, only one of these arguments can be applied to all five of these social issues: the sanctity of life argument. The sanctity of life argument comes in various degrees, but it fundamentally states that life is a gift from God and that mere mortal, fallen, human beings do not have any right to take it away from another of God's creatures. Some religions, like various sects of Buddhism, extend this prohibition to all animals. Other religions extend it only to cows or white buffaloes. Yet, everyone who defends the view of sanctity of life, whether being talk show hosts, musicians, monks, professors, clergy, or politicians, all agree that human life is sacred. Roman Catholics in particular seem to be the largest, most vociferous, and most logically minded advocates of this position in our country; and even though other Christians may hold the same belief in a different demonination, I doubt that there would be a significant difference in substance from the Pope's impressive and comprehensive argument.

The most current work in papal literature on the subject is John Paul II's Evangelium Vitae.^[1] This letter proclaims in the introduction that "The Gospel of God's love for man, the Gospel of the dignity of the person and the Gospel of life are a single and indivisible Gospel" (part 2). To support this claim, Pope John Paul II weaves through a number of scriptural references (both Old and New Testament) and discusses them in such a way that they defend his argument. He is compelled to make his argument in this way because there are no absolutely clear places in the Bible that specifically say that all life is sacred and only God is allowed to justly take one's life away. The closest verse to this claim is the Commandment "You shall not murder" (Ex. 20:13), which many people interpret as "You shall not kill." However, the following commentary from another book suggests that the original Hebrew text of this commandment does not extend to the taking of all forms of human and animal life.

The Hebrew language possesses seven words related to killing, and the word used in the sixth commandment appears only forty-seven times in the Old Testament. This Hebrew verb, rasah, refers only to the killing of a person, never to killing animals, and not even to killing persons in a war. It carries no implications of the means of killing.

If anyone of the seven words for killing in the Old Testament signifies what we refer to as "murder," this is the verb. It implies premeditation and intentionality. Without exception, especially in the later Old Testament periods, it refers to intentional violent murder (Ps 94:6; Prov 22:13; Is 1:21; Jer 7:9; Hos 4:2; 6:9). In each instance, the act was conceived in the mind first and the victim was chosen deliberately.

Thus the Old Testament would never use this verb to denote the killing of beasts for food (Gen 9:6) or the nation's involvement in a war commanded by God. It would, however use this verb in reference to self-murder (suicide) and in references to the actions of accessories to a murder (2 Sam 12:9).^[2]

But unlike some other Christians, Pope John Paul II chooses not take the Sixth Commandment absolutely literally. Where others might take the "You shall not kill/murder" prescription as a final divine command that makes all life sacred, the Pope instead considers it as an Old Testament principle that becomes fulfilled through Jesus in the New Testament.

"In the first place that commandment prohibits murder: 'You shall not kill' (Ex 20: 13); 'do not slay the innocent and righteous' (Ex 23:7). But, as is brought out in Israel's later legislation, it also prohibits all personal injury inflicted on another (ef. Ex 21:12-27). Of course we must recognize that in the Old Testament this sense of the value of life, though already quite marked, does not yet reach the refinement found in the Sermon on the Mount" (part 40).

The fulfillment comes from Jesus's words in Matthew 5:21-22, where Christ says, "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgement.' But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgement." It is here, Pope John Paul II argues, that "Jesus demands from his disciples a righteousness which surpasses that of the Scribes and Pharisees, also with regard to respect for life" (part 41). Hence, even though the Sixth Commandment (and the rest of the Old Testament) may not conclusively settle the argument for life's sacredness, Jesus calls us to go further than the strictly literal meanings of the Commandments.

The other major Scriptural support comes from Genesis 1:27 that proclaims, "So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." Being created in God's image implies two things: First, that we are created and therefore indebted to a Creator; and second, that we are created in His image—in a special, different way from the other creatures. On the former statement, Pope John Paul II confirms this by saying, "in the depths of his conscience, man is always reminded of the inviolability of life—his own life and that of others—as something which does not belong to him, because it is the property and gift of God the Creator and Father" (part 40). Since all human life is God's property, humans have no jurisdiction in matters of life and death. To take someone else's life, or even your own life, is doing harm to God's property. God, as creator, has the sovereignty to destroy his creation, and it is misguided and foolish arrogance for us as humans to assume that power. The latter implication, that humans are made in the image of God, sets us apart from other creation so that the murder of a human being is morally distinct from killing a beast for food. By creating us in His image, God bequeaths upon us the jurisdiction of the animals so that our relation to them is similar to His relation to us.

Now that the Pope's Biblical perspective has been clarified, how does it apply to today's major social issues? Specifically, what would he say to a man that was terribly burned and lost all of his limbs from stepping on a land mine? If he is absorbed in pain and wishes to die rather than live as a burden to others, is it wrong for another soldier in his squad to respond to this tragedy by granting his wish? The Pope's first argument about transcending the letter of the Hebrew law doesn't adequately fit this scenario because this act of killing is not done out of hate or anger. The primary motive in this situation is to benefit the suffering individual.

Along the lines of the second Scriptural argument, Professor Waddell put together a defense on the Pope's behalf. Waddell said that first a distinction needs to be made between "taking positive actions to end a life and not taking actions to preserve a life.'"^[3] If the wounds from the land mine are fatal, then there is nothing wrong with letting those wounds actually kill him, since that seems to be God's will, and therefore the death falls in His jurisdiction. However, if the wounds were not fatal, or even if they were fatal, but he wasn't dying fast enough, it would be wrong for a fellow soldier to end his suffering. The justification offered for this distinction is that in the one instance God is determining when this man will die, and in the other, a mortal is making the decision for Him. Moreover, even though a life absorbed in suffering may not seem to have much value to the individual, we cannot assume that this means that his life has no value at all. Stepping back, God may see that his family, friends, and community will build a higher sense of compassion for his suffering, or that this person's suffering may help him to reflect on the deeds of his life and lead to a more complete repentance. When a human looks at the situation, she only sees the man and his physical suffering; but when God looks at it, He may see much more that could be lost when he is prematurely killed.

However, this reasoning is unsatisfactory. First, how can we say that if this soldier dies as a result of the landmine explosion that that is God's will? Surely, God did not plant the landmine. God did not make the landmine. God probably did not want to watch when the soldier stepped on it. Nor did He want to see the creatures made in His image go to war in the first place. To say that God wanted this unfortunate soldier to die misplaces the blame. The human enemies, the ones who made and planted the landmine, were the ones that wanted the soldier to die and therefore caused the tragedy. So, if the soldier does not die directly from the explosion, I do not think that we can seriously tell him that God wants him to live limb-less and in pain. Nobody with a shred of compassion wants that. Even the enemies do not want him to live such a life.

Secondly, to tell the soldier that they are going to force him to live in pain and without his limbs because his friends, family, and community need to learn compassion, paradoxically is the most uncompassionate thing you could say. The circumstances in which it is morally justified to allow another person to suffer are rare, if there are any at all. But it is even worse to selfishly expect someone else to suffer for your own gain. Imagine the fury that would result from one person torturing another person for money. What makes the concept here any different? Whenever the focus of our actions is on ourselves, we have to beware of selfishness. Selfishness is not limited to money and power. However, in this case it seems that there is more to watch out for than being merely selfish because we are also neglecting the agony of someone else. Both selfishness and neglect are bad enough on their own; but once we wed them together, the evil is compounded.

Furthermore, is there really a significant distinction between helping a man die, and passively watching something else kill him? In Dr. LaMoyne Pederson's Death, Dying, and Beyond^[4] class, we discussed a hypothetical scenario where a grandson was scheming to drown his grandfather in a bathtub. Once he had lured his grandfather into the tub, the telephone rang so the grandson went to get it. When he returned, he saw that his grandfather had slipped, bumped his head, and was now drowning on his own. Of course the grandson was delighted because he didn't have to do the act himself, instead of killing him he just watched him drown. There is no doubt that either way the grandson had immoral intentions, but were his intentions or actions less immoral because the grandfather accidentally died on his own? Legally, not attempting to stop a crime that you encounter makes you a co-conspirator. Moreover, if taking no action results in more pain for victim (which is often the situation in cases of terminally ill patients), how can you not be held accountable for the additional suffering? It seems reasonable in situations of immense and lifelong suffering that if a distinction remains between taking actions towards ending the victim's life and choosing to let them die naturally, then it is more merciful, and more compassionate to choose the former.

The Pope talks about the Gospel of life being indivisible from the Gospel of God's love. However, if mercy and compassion are manifest in God's love, then there are times when God's love does not coincide with human life. Thus, it seems that we cannot say out of one side of our mouth that God is love, and out of the other side that God declares all human life sacred. When confronted with this dilemma, I'm guessing that most Christians would choose to abandon the notion that God declares all human life to be sacred instead of abandoning the idea that God is love. Therefore the issue of sanctity of life cannot be held as an absolute. And in every case where it is considered one must ask whether or not there are other forms of God's love that might take priority. It is true that in many, many situations, by far the most situations, respecting another person's life is the right thing to do. But it is dangerous and foolish to set up general rules as immutable absolutes. Every time I have driven my car, I found it worthwhile to stop at each stop sign. However, I do not pretend for a second that there are no situations when running a stop sign is the right thing to do. In Mere Christianity, CS Lewis commented on the danger of setting up absolute guides for our behavior.

Strictly speaking, there are no such things as good and bad impulses. Think once again of a piano. It has not got two kinds of notes on it, the "right" notes and the "wrong" ones. Every single note is right at one time and wrong at another. The Moral Law is not any one instinct or any set of instincts: it is something which makes a kind of tune (the tune we call goodness or right conduct) by directing the instincts.

By the way, this point is of great practical consequence. The most dangerous thing you can do is to take anyone impulse of your own nature and set it up as the thing you ought to follow at all costs. There is not one that would of them which will not make us into devils if we set it up as an absolute guide.^[5]

Issues of moral conflict are by far the most difficult (and probably the most important) issues to solve. Making these decisions would be much easier if there were absolute guidelines to follow, yet such an adequate guideline has not been found. Like in a game of chess, there are general rules that good players follow, such as not trading one's queen for a pawn. But a player will never be a master unless he learns how and when are good times to abandon those guidelines. The art of chess, the art of music, and the art of morality all draw upon learning fundamentals, and then learning when to make exceptions.

Notes

1. ^  Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) An encyclical letter written by John Paul II and given in Rome on March 25, 1995. Available online at: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/
2. ^  Hard Sayings afthe Bible by Walter C. Kaiser Jr, Peter H. Davids, F.F.Bruce, and Manfred T. Brauch. InterVarsity Press, 1996, pg. 148.
3. ^  Personal conversation with Dr. Michael Waddell (Professor of Philosophy, Augustana College) on April 24. 2001.
4. ^  Augustana College; January 2000
5. ^  Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. (1952) First Touchstone Edition (1996) pg.24