Letter: The Pope ,morality and the frontiers of life and death
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.From Mr Nicholas Coote
Sir: The Archbishop of York's general support ("The meaning of life - and death", 20 April) for the Pope's moral leadership in his recent encyclical on life is most welcome. As Dr Habgood points out, protection of human life, especially in its weakest forms, is both a Christian imperative and the essential moral foundation for civilised society. However, he has reservations that seem to arise from a misreading of the text.
First, Dr Habgood suggests that important moral differences between contraception, abortion, embryo research, euthanasia and capital punishment are overlooked. On the contrary, the Pope does distinguish between these, and he explicitly distinguishes between the nature and moral gravity of contraception and abortion.
Dr Habgood also questions whether the Pope takes adequate account of the findings of modern biology, and in particular whether the assertion that human life begins at conception contradicts the fundamental biological premise of "gradualism". In fact, the Pope relies on modern biological knowledge as providing a strong indication that from fertilisation onwards there is an individual entity with a distinct genetic life programme.
It is not true that the Pope's argument depends on an equivocal use of the word "human". It is, in fact, on the basis of the principle of "gradualism" that the Pope argues that, from conception, an individual of the human species, as a dynamically ordered organism, cannot easily be regarded as anything other than a person beginning to develop towards full human maturity.
Finally, with regard to euthanasia, Dr Habgood claims that the encyclical does not mention transplant surgery or the persistent vegetative state (PVS). Organ transplants are mentioned in two passages, one of which refers to the controversial subject of adequate criteria of death. Although the Pope does not mention PVS, his distinction between "disproportionate" medical treatment and normal care is obviously relevant. In England and Wales, Catholic and Anglican bishops in their joint submission to the House of Lords agreed that decisions about treating dying patients should be guided by the principle that a pattern of care should never be adopted with the intention, purpose or aim of terminating the life or bringing about the death of a patient (June 1993).
Yours faithfully,
NICHOLAS COOTE
Assistant General Secretary
Catholic Bishop's Conference of England and Wales
London, SW1
21 April
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments