Defending the Dignity of the Human Person:
Pope Benedict XVI

A “Pilgrim of Peace” in the Middle East

The Holy Father completed a tour of the Middle East in May, renewing lines of dialogue with both Jewish and Muslim leaders throughout the region. The founder of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, wrote in The Wall Street Journal, “I was deeply encouraged by the pope’s visit and believe that it has contributed significantly toward supplanting the dark and violent history between Jews and the Church.” (May 18)

Speaking at the largest mosque in Jordan, the Holy Father reached out to Muslims with an appeal to embark together in the “task...to cultivate for the good, in the context of faith and truth, the vast potential of human reason.” (Address at Al-Hussein bin Talal Mosque in Amman, May 9th)

The Christian communities in the Middle East are an increasingly shrinking minority. The Holy Father called on Christians in the region to hold fast as their numbers in the Holy Land dwindle. On the last day of his trip, the Holy Father prayed at the empty tomb believed to be that of Christ:

“The empty tomb speaks to us of hope, the hope that does not disappoint because it is the gift of the spirit of life. This is the message that I wish to leave with you today at the conclusion of my pilgrimage to the Holy Land. May hope rise up ever new by God’s Grace in the words of all the people dwelling in these lands. May it take root in your hearts and inspire each of you and your faithful witness for the Prince of Peace.” (Jerusalem, May 15th)

During his trip to the Middle East, Benedict highlighted the Catholic Church’s respect for the right of all people to religious freedom. Speaking in Jordan, he said, “Religious freedom is a fundamental right, and it is my fervent hope and prayer that respect for the inalienable rights and dignity of every man and woman will come to be increasingly affirmed and defended, not only throughout the Middle East, but in every part of the world.” (Address at Queen Alia International Airport, Amman, May 8th)

Benedict spoke out on behalf of the Palestinians saying, “The Holy See supports the right of your people to a sovereign Palestinian homeland in the land of your forefathers, secure and at peace with its neighbors, within internationally recognized borders.” (Bethlehem, May 13th)

Speaking at the Aida refugee camp in Bethlehem, the Holy Father criticized the concrete security wall “towering over us,” saying it was “tragic” to see barriers erected between the two communities.

While still in Jordan, Benedict seemed to be looking ahead toward the tense situation between Palestine and Israel he would be facing in a few days. In his speech at the largest mosque in Jordan, he observed that religious freedom, “...includes the right, especially of minorities, to fair access to the employment market and other spheres of civic life.” (Amman, May 9th)

Religious Freedom

Later during his four-day stay in Jordan, the Holy Father pointed out the tension that exists between religious freedom and the politicization of religion, saying, “...is it not also the case that often it is the ideological manipulation of religion, sometimes for political ends, that is the real catalyst for tension and division, and at times even violence in society?” (ibid)

Such manipulation of religion for political ends could be witnessed only a month before the Holy Father’s visit to the Holy Land, at the Durban II conference on racism sponsored by the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland. It was there that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad criticized Israel as racist, and called for “blasphemy” to be punished. Many of the delegates to the conference walked out after these comments by the Iranian leader. Many have observed that the phrase “human rights” is now being invoked by leaders like Ahmadinejad in order to legitimate what is actually a politicization of human rights and an ideological manipulation of religion. Ahmadinejad’s speech at the UN Conference on racism could only serve to stir up violent extremists in the Middle East.

However, Benedict addressed this problem of misguided attempts to defend “human rights,” not only as a problem that is symptomatic of religious fanaticism, but also as a problem faced by modern Western democracies whose liberal philosophy also falls short of a complete understanding of the human person, leaving out the transcendent dimension. Speaking to Muslims in Jordan, the Holy Father pointed out that, “...genuine adherence to religion...protects civil society from the excesses of the unbridled ego which tend to absolutize the finite and eclipse the infinite.” (ibid)

Universal Human Rights

The need for a defined code of international human rights was the topic of the Plenary meeting of the Pontifical Academy for Social Sciences in Rome on May 4, 2009. Addressing the Academy, Benedict urged them to defend and promote those “non-negotiable human rights” that are based in God’s law.

The Holy Father affirmed the “right to life and the right to freedom of conscience and religion as being at the center of those rights that spring from human nature itself.” He noted that these human rights are not strictly “truths of faith,” though they “receive further confirmation from faith.”

Benedict has appealed to men and women of good will before, to work toward a universally valid philosophy that could serve as a foundation for universal human rights – a philosophy not strictly Christian in content, but nevertheless building upon the great synthesis between faith and reason that Christian Europe achieved. The Holy Father has collaborated many times with thinkers, including non-Christians and atheists, in an effort to develop an intellectual place where everyone involved can talk of issues based on common principles that are philosophically defined. On this basis, it is possible “to develop a fruitful dialogue between believers and non-believers, between theologians, philosophers, jurists and scientists, which can offer to legislation as well precious material for personal and social life.” (Address to the International Congress on Natural Moral Law, February 12, 2007)

A Crisis of Roots

In an address given the day before Pope John Paul II died, then Cardinal Ratzinger spoke about “Europe’s Crisis of Culture,” pointing out the possibilities that Europe and the West had for providing real leadership for the world in the area of human rights, by returning to their Christian roots. In this address, Benedict also elaborated on several ways in which both the culture of Europe and the “creative reason” of Christianity have collaborated toward a universally valid philosophy in our own times:

“...undoubtedly we have arrived at important acquisitions which can pretend to a universal validity. These include: the acquisition that religion cannot be imposed by the state, but that it can only be accepted in freedom; respect of the fundamental rights of man equal for all; and the separation of powers and control of power.”

Then Cardinal Ratzinger went on to say, “However, these are based on imposed limitations of reason, characteristic of a specific cultural situation — that of the modern West — and therefore not the last word of reason. Nevertheless, though they might seem totally rational, they are not the voice of reason itself, but are also identified culturally with the present situation in the West.

“For this reason they are in no way that philosophy which one day could be valid throughout the world. But, above all, it must be said that this Enlightenment [European] philosophy, and its respective culture, is incomplete. It consciously severs its own historical roots depriving itself of the regenerating forces from which it sprang, from that fundamental memory of humanity, so to speak, without which reason loses its orientation.”

What Benedict points out here is that our current concept of human rights in the West (including freedom of religion, the equality of man, and the balance of power) developed from a Christianized Europe, and that it is incomplete without an ongoing development within the context of a dialogue between faith and reason. As the Holy Father pointed out to the Academy of Social Sciences in May, a necessary step in rooting these valuable “acquisitions” within a Christian context, is to root them in certain “non-negotiable human rights” that are based in God’s law, especially the “...right to life and the right to freedom of conscience and religion.”

Western Dogmaticism in Africa

The need to root certain accepted values, like freedom and equality, within a larger context of “non-negotiable human rights” becomes apparent when freedom itself is under attack by a “confused ideology of freedom.” Indeed, as Benedict recognized in “Europe’s Crisis of Culture,” the modern West’s concept of freedom is ill-defined, leading toward “limitations of freedom that a generation ago we could not even imagine.”

A recent example of attempted limitations of freedom in the name of freedom occurred this past April, when the House of Representatives of Belgium ordered the Ambassador of Belgium to the Holy See to deliver an official condemnation of the Pope’s remarks on the use of condoms to prevent AIDS in Africa.

The Holy See responded by saying it “deplores the fact that a Parliamentary Assembly should have thought it appropriate to criticize the Holy Father on the basis of an isolated extract from an interview, separated from its context, and used by some groups with a clear intent to intimidate, as if to dissuade the Pope from expressing himself on certain themes of obvious moral relevance and from teaching the Church’s doctrine.”

Dr. Edward Green, a Senior Harvard Researcher for AIDS Prevention, told Catholic News Agency that science is finding that the media is actually on the wrong side of the issue. In fact, Green said that not only do condoms not work, but that they may be “exacerbating the problem” in Africa.

During his visit to Africa, the Holy Father especially praised and encouraged African families who are strongly intact. As an example for the West to follow, Benedict exhorted, “those who come from other continents can learn afresh from Africa that the family is the foundation on which the social edifice is built.” (Meeting with Political and Civil Authorities, Presidential Palace in Luanda, Angola, Friday, March 20th, 2009)

One of the presenters at the Plenary meeting of the Academy of Social Science, Janne Haaland-Matlary (professor of international politics at the University of Oslo and former deputy foreign minister of Norway), explained how human rights are becoming increasingly vulnerable to political exploitation. For instance, Matlary pointed out how, since the 1990’s, non-governmental organizations and governments, using a series of well-trodden paths through supranational and national bodies, have sought to change public opinion on matters such as abortion, and now, increasingly, marriage and the family.

Benedict seemed to echo such concerns during his trip to Africa, observing, “the peoples of this continent are rightly calling out, not simply for more programs and protocols, but for a deep-seated, lasting conversion of hearts to sincere solidarity.” (ibid)

More and more, aid that is offered to African nations by the West is tied to conditions that those nations accept Western policies on abortion and the enforcement of “reproductive rights,” which means enforcing a policy of diminished population growth. The policies are an obvious threat to the social edifice of Africa.

Faith and Reason

If, in the name of freedom itself, the West’s truncated understanding of human rights offers “programs and protocols” that would limit human freedom on its most basic level, then the question must be asked, “What has gone wrong?”

A consistent answer to this question, and one that Benedict has proposed in many ways, is that human reason, and science itself, is incomplete without the light of faith and an awareness of God himself as an actor within the human realm; that the result of the modern West’s effort to distance itself from its Christian roots, and God himself, is “contempt for man.” (Europe’s Crisis of Culture)

The Holy Father proposes an alternate approach to those who serve the common good in the civil arena, but who cannot reconcile the perceived encroachment of faith into the public sector: “Even one who does not succeed in finding the way of accepting God, should, nevertheless, seek to live and to direct his life as if God existed... In this way, no one is limited in his freedom, but all our affairs find the support and criterion of which they are in urgent need.” (ibid)

An assertion for the acceptance of God in the public realm, through faith, can be supported by Catholics from the standpoint of the separation of Church and State, and from the standpoint of the Church’s role in upholding the dignity of the human person.

“...insofar as universal religion, beyond the different states and peoples, [the Catholic Church] has denied the state the right to regard religion as a part of state ordering, thus postulating the freedom of faith. It has always defined men, all men without distinction, as creatures and images of God, proclaiming for them, in terms of principle, although within the imperative limits of social ordering, the same dignity.” (ibid)

The social teachings of the Church are based on the understanding that men and women are created in the image and likeness of God, that human nature is a gift from God which man receives, not which any institution itself can determine. The “more human realities are seen in the light of God’s plan and lived in communion with God, the more they are empowered and liberated in their distinctive identity and in the freedom that is proper to them.” (Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 45)

In the West, it is necessary for all men and women of good will to work toward a public acceptance of basic human rights that conform to the true nature of human beings, whether these rights be recognized as God-given or not. This is not a matter of faith encroaching itself in the public sector, but of the “harmony of freedom [being] found only in what is common to all: the truth of the human being.” (Benedict XVI, Address to the International Congress on Natural Moral Law, February 12, 2007)

Christian Roots and the Right to Life in the U.S.

After U.S. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, visited Pope Benedict in Rome in February, the Vatican released this statement:

“His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development.”

Benedict XVI knows the Christian roots upon which America was built. As Archbishop Charles J. Chaput writes in his book, Render Unto Caesar:

“Many of our key political documents, like Abraham Lincoln’s second inaugural address, the Declaration of Independence, and even the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom drafted by Thomas Jefferson himself, would fail the test pushed by today’s secularizers. Religious language underpins them all. More importantly, religious conviction frames their reasoning.

“If our nation has changed from the land of opportunity to the land of private appetites over the last few decades, one of the reasons is this: We haven’t lived what we say we believe. Homelessness, poverty, abortion, the exploitation of undocumented immigrants, the neglect of the elderly – these are brazenly real problems in contemporary America. They won’t go away by blaming the Religious Right, smearing Christian believers as extremists, or kicking religion out of the public discussion. That’s the language of power grab by people alienated from our country’s religious roots.

“Our problems can only be solved by people of character who actively and without apology take their beliefs into public debates. That includes Catholics. We need to be stronger in our public witness, not weaker.” (pp. 32-33)

Recent polls reveal that common ground exists among Americans in regard to overturning Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that is interpreted to allow abortion without restrictions, suggesting that 72% of Americans oppose unrestricted abortion; only 18% are in favor.

A recent Gallup poll found that a majority of Americans now identify themselves as “pro-life.” Overall, it found that 76% of Americans disagree with the Roe regime of unrestricted abortion, while only 22% agree.

These polls show that Americans, by a more than 3:1 margin, want restrictions on abortion — a remarkable if largely unnoticed consensus.

Within our own nation, the need to define a universal code of human rights in the civic realm becomes necessary, in this case to define clearly that the right of an unborn child to live should be protected by the State, not as a matter of faith, but as a matter of the justice of which the State is a steward.

Pro-life activists, like Joe Scheidler, National Director of the Pro-Life Action League, have found inspiration for their work from the nineteenth century American abolitionists. They sought to change the legal status of a whole segment of the nation’s population. Although considered radical in their time, they achieved their goal through nonviolence and passive resistance.

At the Catholic University of America, on May 29th, Princeton Professor of Law, Robert George, provided very clear guidelines for a code of human rights that would protect the unborn. Professor George engaged the question, if when a child is in utero, there is a clash of the rights of two persons. His answer was as follows:

“No, not a clash of the rights of two person. That’s where people go wrong, to suppose that its somehow in the interests or a matter of the rights of the women to do away with the child, and that there is a conflict between the rights of the mother and the rights of the child. No, there is a common bond of mother and child. And here’s where Mother Theresa’s teaching is so beautiful: let’s love mother and child, let’s never pit the interests of a woman against the interests of her child. Let’s take Mother Theresa’s lesson, let’s reach out in love and care and concern for both. We can do that.

“But if we teach the lesson in our laws, that the life of the child is worth nothing, that it can be freely taken as a solution to a problem, then we have gone down the wrong path.”

It is also worth repeating Benedict’s words to the International Congress on Natural Moral Law that the “harmony of freedom is found only in what is common to all: the truth of the human being.” (February 12, 2007)

Men and women of good will can say, in truth and without fear, that providing legal protection for the unborn is also defending the safety and well-being of women.

The Truth of Creation

America has become a leader in the world in upholding religious freedom and an example of a government with high standards for the separation of powers and control of power. Americans should not allow these universal goods to be spoiled by falling for false freedoms like “abortion rights.” There is no loss of freedom by promoting the protection of the most innocent and vulnerable members of our society.

To quote Benedict XVI in one of his very clear expositions on theology:

“Since it is God’s creation, nature itself is a source of law. It indicates boundaries that must not be transgressed. The immediate relevance of this question is obvious: where the killing of innocent life is declared to be ‘right,’ injustice is made a law. Where the rule of law no longer protects human life, it is questionable whether it deserves the name of law. In saying this, I do not intend to impose a specifically Christian morality on all the citizens in a pluralistic society; no, what is involved here is humanitas, the “specifically human quality” of man, who cannot declare the trampling underfoot of creation to be his own liberation without deceiving himself on a very profound level.” (The God of Jesus Christ, Meditations on the Triune God, Ignatius Press, p. 46)

Close window