ISSUE 13 - JULY 2011

The Principles of the Social Doctrineof the Catholic Church A Summary - Part II:

The Universal Destination of Goods

IntroductionThe Catholic Church’s Social Doctrine is a treasury of wisdom, or a body of teaching, that has been distilled from Catholic Church’s careful Magisterial reflection. It is also an expression of the Church’s constant commitment in fidelity to the grace of salvation wrought in Christ and in loving concern for humanity’s destination1. In general, the principles of Catholic Social Teaching echo elements of Jewish Law and the prophetic books of the Old Testament, but more importantly, they recall the teachings of Jesus Christ, such as His declaration: “in so far as you did this to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did it to me”2. The permanent principles of the Church’s social doctrine constitute the very heart of the Catholic Social Teaching3. An in depth elucidation of the principles can be found in the “Compendium of the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church” which was published in 2004. In our 11th (July 2010) issue of Dignitas Humana, we summarised five of the Principles of Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church, namely; Human Dignity, the Common Good, Solidarity, Subsidiarity and the Preferential Option for the Poor. In this issue, we summarise the Principle of the universal destination of goods.

The Universal Destination of GoodsPope John Paul II stated in his encyclical, Centesimus Annus4: “The original source of all that is good is the very act of God, who created both the earth and man, and who gave the earth to man so that he might have dominion over it by his work and enjoy its fruits (Gen 1:28)”. This is the basis and foundation of the principle of the Universal destination of goods; namely, that God created the world and all that it contains for everyone, without excluding or favouring anyone. God gifted the whole human race with

His creation to sustain human life. The human person cannot do without the material goods that God has provided for his primary needs and they constitute the basic conditions for his existence; material goods are absolutely indispensable if he is to feed himself, grow, communicate, associate with others, and attain the highest purposes to which he is called. The Principle of the Universal Destination of Goods recognizes the fact that the most important contributions to the production of goods and services come from God and from past efforts (building of tools and accumulation of knowledge), and that no individual or group of individuals (or nations) have the right to exclude the rest of humanity from access to them. The Principle weaves through several Papal encyclicals. Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Rerum Novarum5 said; “the earth, even though apportioned among private owners, ceases not thereby to minister to the needs of all”. Pope Pius XI also touched on this in his encyclical Quadragesimo Anno6: “To each, therefore, must be given his own share of goods, and the distribution of created goods, which, as every discerning person knows, is labouring today under the gravest evils due to the huge disparity between the few exceedingly rich and the unnumbered property-less, must be effectively called back to and brought into conformity with the norms of the common good, that is, social justice.” In Populorum Progressio7, Pope Paul VI stated: “All other rights whatsoever, including those of property and of free commerce, are to be subordinated to this principle. They should not hinder but on the contrary favour its application. It is a grave and urgent social duty to redirect them to their primary finality”.

(The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church spells out this Principle succinctly in paragraphs 171-184 and also links it with the other Principles of Catholic Social Teaching)

1 C.f. Para 8 Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church 2 New Jerusalem Bible: Matthew 25:40 3 Compendium of the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church - Para 1604 Encyclical of Pope John Paul II – Centicimus Annus(1991) – On the 100th Anniversary of Rerum Novarum, Para. 315 Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII – Rerum Novarum (1891) – On Capital and Labour – para 8.6 Encyclical of Pope Pius XI (1931), Quadragesimo Anno – On the Reconstruction of the Social Order Para. 587 Encyclical of Pope Paul VI - Populorum Progression (1967) – On the Progress of the People – Para. 22

Mercy or Murder?Euthanasia andCatholic Social Teaching

Euthanasia translates from the Greek as “easy death” or “good death”. It is commonly and generally defined as an act undertaken by a physician that intentionally ends the life of a person at his or her request. As such, euthanasia is active (that is, performed by means of a deliberate intervention) and voluntary. Non-voluntary euthanasia occurs if the patient is incapable of lodging such a request but is presumed by an authorised representative to desire death. Involuntary euthanasia is a termination of life against a patient’s express wishes and is indistinct from homicide in all jurisdictions1.

The Catholic Church Declaration on Euthanasia does not provide a strictly clinical or operational definition of euthanasia, but rather appeals to morality and conscience, stating that “euthanasia’s terms of reference...are to be found in the intention of the will and in the methods used”2.

At this point it must be emphasised that the two medical decisions of withholding futile treatments and engaging in pain management are not forms of euthanasia, even if they are measures which might be expected to hasten death as an unavoidable consequence. In a news release on Catholic teaching and euthanasia, New Zealand’s Nathaniel Centre reinforces this point and cautions against referring to these medical actions as “passive euthanasia” - a term which is relatively widely used but is misleading and confusing3. Also, the Catholic Church Declaration on Euthanasia makes explicit the fact that rejecting disproportionately painful, experimental, ineffective or costly methods of forestalling impending death is not considered to

be euthanasia and is consistent with the principles of Catholic Social Teaching:

When inevitable death is imminent in spite of the means used, it is permitted in conscience to take the decision to refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life, so long as the normal care due to the sick person in similar cases is not interrupted. In such circumstances the doctor has no reason to reproach himself with failing to help the person in danger.4

Closely related to physician administered euthanasia is physician assisted suicide (PAS). Under this arrangement, the person seeking death self-administers the lethal agent under medical supervision. Technicalities aside, PAS is popularly regarded as synonymous with euthanasia and is considered as such for the purposes of this article.

Under the Crimes Act 1961, euthanasia is illegal in New Zealand. There is no guarantee, however, that its criminal status will persist indefinitely. Michael Law’s Death with Dignity Bill was introduced to this country’s parliament in 1995 but was defeated by a count of 61 to 29 at its first reading. Eight years later Peter Brown’s Death with Dignity Bill was again defeated at the first reading stage, but by only a slender margin of 60 to 58. Opposed to the bill, Attorney General Margaret Wilson commented that due to a lack of safeguards around advance directives (living wills), the Death with Dignity Bill (2003) seemed to be “inconsistent with the right not to be deprived of life” as specified in New Zealand’s Bill of Rights5.

1 See Pereira, J. (2011), Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide: the illusion of safeguards & controls. Current Oncology, vol 18 number 2, p 38.2 Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Euthanasia. Vatican (1980). 3 The Nathaniel Centre, Catholic Teaching on Euthanasia and Care of the Dying (16/11/2010).4 Declaration on Euthanasia.5 ‘Euthanasia ‘a breach of rights’. The Dominion Post, 27 June 2003, p 2.

2

Many if not all of us have watched – or will watch – a loved one struggle with pain or suffering as he or she faces death. This is an unavoidable part of the human condition. So at first glance, it might appear that in some circumstances a deliberate termination of life is merciful and mindful of human dignity. But the practise of euthanasia – even if motivated by humane intentions - is incompatible with God’s divine plan for human

existence. The purpose of this article is to define and examine euthanasia in the context of Catholic Social Teaching and its legal status both in New Zealand and internationally.

Recent opinion polls conducted in New Zealand indicate significant public support for euthanasia. Scientific polls organised by Colmar Brunton in 2008 and Massey University in 2008 and 2010 found that about 70 percent of respondents favoured a patient’s right to request euthanasia6. A New Zealand Herald reader survey in July 2010 returned a level of support for euthanasia exceeding 80 percent7. This newspaper survey was conducted in the wake of Dr John Pollock’s well publicised illness and his support for euthanasia in New Zealand8.

Although euthanasia is illegal in our nation, there are six overseas jurisdictions which currently grant regulated legitimate status to euthanasia. Eligibility criteria differ across these nations or states, but Pereira notes that there do exist common ‘safeguards’, namely that (1) the request for euthanasia is voluntary, well considered, informed and persistent over time; (2) all cases of euthanasia are subject to mandatory reporting standards and channels; (3) acts are to be performed only by physicians and (4), at least one other physician’s opinion as to eligibility has been considered9.

Table 1 below lists these six jurisdictions and their sanctioned variant(s) of euthanasia:

- Table 1 -Jurisdictions with Legitimatised Euthanasia Practices10

Jurisdiction Year CommentsSwitzerland 1942 Assisted suicide for Swiss

nationals and non-nationalsOregon, USA 1997 Physician assisted suicideThe Netherlands 2001 Euthanasia and physician

assisted suicideBelgium 2002 EuthanasiaWashington, USA 2008 Physician assisted suicideLuxembourg 2009 Euthanasia and physician

assisted suicide

Closer to home, Australia’s Northern Territory legalised euthanasia under the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995. This legislation was overturned soon after, however, by the Commonwealth government. In the interim, four people availed themselves of physician-assisted suicide, aided by prominent euthanasia advocate and director of Exit International, Dr Philip Nitschke. However, Australia’s official

engagement with euthanasia at state level could possibly resume11. A private members bill is currently before the South Australian parliament which would allow doctors a legal defence in the event of providing drugs that hasten the death of ill patients. In Tasmania, Premier Lara Giddings has indicated her intention to revise and reintroduce a private members bill on voluntary euthanasia that was defeated in the state parliament in 2010. Dr Nitschke believes that there is a “very good chance” of the South Australian proposal passing into law, prompting him to investigate the opening of a euthanasia clinic in Adelaide12.

Estimates of the number of people who have died from legally sanctioned euthanasia are relatively ambiguous and varied. However, some available data include the following: (1) the number of reported deaths from euthanasia in the Netherlands in 2009 was 2,636, up by 13 percent from 200813 and 24 percent from 200714; and (2), in Belgium, 700 reported cases of euthanasia occurred in 2009, up from 500 cases in 2008. Of course, it is very likely that actual numbers of euthanasia deaths far exceed the official statistics. According to The Guardian newspaper, a Brunel University study suggests that over 900 British patients died after explicitly requesting their doctor for euthanasia in 200515.

It is reasonably clear, then, that from both domestic and international trends the public mandate for euthanasia is likely to gain intensity and greater political palpability. Such sentiment can only be bolstered by the disintegration of community spirit in favour of egocentric modes of thought; that is, the move away from an awareness of social responsibilities towards the exercise of personal rights – including the right to die.

A demographic fact also acts to sharpen the focus on euthanasia: the ageing New Zealand population. According to Statistics New Zealand, the proportion of New Zealanders aged 65 or more is currently 12 percent but is predicted to rise to 20 percent by 203116. In this context, Australian bio-ethicist Dr Nicholas Tonti-Fillipini suggests that the appeal of euthanasia will sit comfortably with the self-actualising, independent and autonomous values of the “Baby Boom” generation which is about to enter retirement17. And the comments of England’s Baroness Mary Warnock (who is often referred to as Britain’s leading medical

6 Colmar Brunton , August 2008; Massey University Department of Marketing, August 2008; Massey University School of Communication, Journalism and Marketing, March 2010.7 Legalising euthanasia wins huge support http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10660398 (accessed 30/4/2011).8 Dr Pollock was diagnosed with metastatic melanoma in December 2009. He died in September 2010. 9 Switzerland does not stipulate safeguards (3) or (4), for the reason that Article 115 of the Swiss Penal Code decriminalizes anyone who assists in a suicide, on the condition that the assistant does not experience personal gain from the death.10 Sources: http://www.medical-answers.org/hd/index.php (accessed 15/05/2011); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_euthanasia (accessed 15/05/2011); Pereira (2011).11 Unlike in the case of the Northern Territory, legislation enacted by Australian states can not be repealed by the federal Commonwealth parliament.12 ‘Nitschke eyes Adelaide for euthanasia clinic’ (29/3/2011).http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/28/3175125.htm (accessed 18/05/2011).13 http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/06/sharp_growth_in_euthanasia_dea.php (accessed 20/05/2011).14 http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/may/10051903 (accessed 20/05/2011).15 http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/jan/18/health.science (accessed 20/05/2011).16 Statistics New Zealand Hot Off The Press (27/10/2009), ‘National Population Projections 2009 – 2061’.17 Interview with Nicholas Tonti-Fillipini, 30/09/2005. Broadacst from Plains FM 96.9 ‘Catholics on Air’, 9/10/2005.

3

ethics expert) should sound a warning to the groups in society generally regarded as most vulnerable, including the elderly and disabled: “I don’t see what is so horrible about the motive of not wanting to be an increasing nuisance”18.British physician and research fellow at Royal Edinburgh Hospital, Stephen G. Potts, succinctly summarises the societal and economic pressures for euthanasia. He also alludes to the ‘slippery slope’ argument that once legitimised, the practice of euthanasia will spread to other vulnerable sectors of society:

Families have all kinds of subtle ways, conscious and unconscious, of putting pressure on a patient to request euthanasia and relieve them of the financial and social burden of care...Euthanasia is, after all, a very cheap service...Already in Britain, there is a serious under-provision of expensive therapies like renal dialysis and intensive care, with the result that many otherwise preventable deaths occur. Legalizing euthanasia would save substantial financial resources which could be diverted to more ‘useful’ treatments. These economic concerns already exert pressure to accept euthanasia, and, if accepted, they will inevitably tend to

4

18 Sarah-Kate Templeton, “Better for old to kill themselves than be a burden, says Warnock,” The Sunday Times, December 12, 2004. 19 Stephen G. Potts ‘Objections to the Institutionalization of Euthanasia’ in Thomas A. Mappes & Jame S. Zembaty, Social Ethics: Morality and Social Policy, 5th ed. (USA: McGraw-Hill Co., Inc., 1997). 7520 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen_Protocol (accessed 14/05/2011).21 Pereira (2011), p 40.22 Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae (1995), paragraph 65.23 Ibid, paragraph 66.24 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (2005): Homebush, St Pauls. Paragraph 165.

enlarge the category of patients for whom euthanasia is permitted.19

An example of the slippery slope phenomenon is the Groningen Protocol. This was mandated by the Dutch Society for Pediatrics in 2005 and specifies that upon the satisfaction of four conditions, non-voluntary euthanasia may be performed upon children younger than 12 years of age who are expected to have ‘no hope of a good quality of life’, quite apart from any terminal conditions. Opinions on this protocol range from it being ‘a success which should be expanded’ to a policy ‘pushing infanticide’20.

Another application of the slippery slope argument concerns legal tolerance and discretion around euthanasia which reflects existing social mores.

“ “Families have all kinds of subtle ways, conscious and unconscious, of putting pressure on a patient to request euthanasia and relieve them of the financial and social burden of care...

Pereira comments that “there has been an increasing tolerance toward transgressions of the law, indicating a change in societal values after legislation of euthanasia and assisted suicide”21. In this context he details breaches of the euthanasia safeguards discussed above, including that (1) over 500 people are euthanised every year in the Netherlands without issuing explicit consent; (2) almost half of all the euthanasia cases in Belgium are not reported to the appropriate authority and (3), over ten percent of Belgian euthanasia procedures are administered by nurses, not by physicians as required by law. Moreover, the prescribed penalties for such transgressions are rarely applied, thereby implicitly condoning their practise.

So, how does the Catholic Church respond to the potential for greater legal provision and tolerance for euthanasia? The position of the Church on euthanasia is clear and unequivocal, as articulated by Pope John Paul II’s 1995 encyclical ‘Evangelium vitae’:

Euthanasia is a grave violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary

and universal Magisterium. Depending on the circumstances, this practice involves the malice proper to suicide or murder.22

Evangelium Vitae continues its examination of euthanasia by quoting St Augustine’s exhortation that “it is never licit to kill another, even if he should wish it”23. Complying with such a request might be driven by a motive of mercy, but it is a misguided or perverted conception of mercy. Catholic Social Teaching maintains that the love inspired by the Gospel of the Beatitudes manifests itself in works of ‘corporal and spiritual mercy’ which are diametrically opposed to euthanasia. These works promote the common good, a permanent principle of Catholic Social Teaching which is concerned with the ‘good of all people and of the whole person’24.

Acts of practical, emotional and spiritual support to a dying person during his or her time of trial are familiar works of corporal and spiritual mercy25. A number of commentators note that effective palliative care is essentially a substitute for euthanasia - proper support for all concerned patients would surely reduce the desire for death to be hastened26. Of relevance here is that Hospice New Zealand, the Palliative Care Council and the New Zealand Medical Association – all agencies acutely involved with the ethics and issues around terminal suffering – are officially opposed to euthanasia and assisted suicide27

28 29. Indeed, the Hippocratic Oath30 stipulates that “I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel”. And a dominant figure in the twentieth century hospice movement, Dame Cicely Saunders, addresses us by stating that:

You matter because you are you. You matter to the last moment of your life and we will do all we can to help you die peacefully, but also to live until you die. 31

Catholic Social Teaching holds that one permanent principle of its doctrine underpins all other principles and associated content32. This essential principle is the dignity of the human person. Although proponents of euthanasia might believe that they are protecting human dignity, they are in fact failing to recognise the dignity of the human person in its true and transcendental

5

sense. Every man and woman, no matter how apparently ‘insignificant’, has received an ‘incomparable and inalienable dignity from God himself’33. We are the living image and creation of God and in some fashion are united with God through Christ’s incarnation and suffering which we are destined to share34. To deny life to oneself or another through euthanasia is to sever this divine relationship and to reject God’s gift of dignity. Moreover, euthanasia is clearly at odds with two fundamental beliefs held by Christians and many other faiths; namely the Fifth Commandment that “thou shall not kill” (Exodus 20:13) and the premise that God alone has dominion over life and death (Deut 32:39).

In summary, it is likely that public support for euthanasia in New Zealand will increase in the foreseeable future due to the compound effects of social attitudes, demographic trends and the observation of international developments - including those in the bellwether nation of Australia. As the euthanasia debate unfolds, it is important for Catholics to be familiar with how the Church understands euthanasia and why the Church is opposed to its practice. Catholic belief in human dignity establishes a ‘sanctity of life’ viewpoint which is absolute and often fundamentally opposed to subjective arguments around ‘quality of life’ espoused by the supporters of euthanasia.

25 Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, paragraph 184. 26 See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/against/against_1.shtml#h7 (accessed 28/5/2011).27 Hospice New Zealand, Statement on Hospice Care and Assisted Dying, March 2010.28 Palliative Care Council, Statement on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, 9 March 2011.29‘Euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide’ (July 2005): http://www.nzma.org.nz/news/policies/euthanasia.html (accessed 20/05/2011).30 Doctors in New Zealand are no longer required to take the Hippocratic Oath. However, they are bound by medical standards. Clause 25 of the Medical Council of New Zealand’s ‘Good Medical Practice’ document asserts that “Euthanasia is illegal in New Zealand”.31 Cicely Saunders, 1963.32 Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, paragraph 160.33 Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, paragraph 105.34 Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, 22: AAS 58 (1966), 1042.

6

The Death ofOsama bin Laden

– Justice was done?The world looked on in horror on September 11th 2001 when terrorists flew hijacked passenger planes into New York City’s Twin Towers. The iconic buildings were destroyed, and more than 2,700 people were killed. The incident led to President Bush devoting massive resources towards the “war on terror”1 and the manhunt to bring those responsible to justice. The man believed to have masterminded the terrorist attack, Osama bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaida terrorist group,

The justification of the killing of Osama bin Laden may be debated by many on many different grounds, including that of rendering an unjust aggressor2 unable to cause harm. The questions that need asking include: When it comes to a terrorist or a murderer who has taken the life of an innocent victim, is justice done simply and only when a murderer or a terrorist is killed? There is currently a dangerous mindset creeping into society that the answer is the affirmative – i.e. that ‘justice is done’ only when an unjust aggressor is killed. We see this in media interviews of family of victims of violence and murders, when reporters attempt to extract vengeful comments from grieving families. We see this mindset expressed recently by the British ministers who spoke of the necessity of striking at Colonel Gaddafi’s command post in Libya to stop him launching “murderous assaults” on his own people. The NATO strike cost the lives of three of Gaddafi’s grandchildren, who by any measure are innocent victims. Where is the future in preventing murderous assaults by launching murderous assaults?. These acts do not stand well with one of the enduring moral truths: never do evil that good may come out of it. We must always return to the ideal that true justice can only be done when we respect the transcendent dignity of the human person – even if that person happens to be our enemy.

Terrorism and murderous acts must always be condemned in every society, and we must do our utmost to stop unjust aggressors from harming others. What we must be careful to avoid is the spiral downwards to do the same, taking the same path of anger, hatred, violence

and vengeance of those who perpetrate it. The dignity of the human person includes his ability to will to break the cycle of violence through love, forgiveness and reconciliation. That option, difficult as it may be, is the path that gives us humans our dignity. Martin Luther King Jr., wrote a powerful passage in his book3;

“Are we seeking power for power’s sake? Or are we seeking to make the world and our nation better places to live. If we seek the latter, violence can never provide the answer. The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiples violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. The beauty of nonviolence is that in its own way and in its own time it seeks to break the chain reaction of evil.”

When the horror of the September 11th attacks was unfolding, the world media also presented us with the distasteful images of street celebrations in Tehran and other places in the Islamic world, showing people rejoicing that the terrorists had successfully inflicted a major blow to the people of the United States of America. Similiarly, when the

became one of the world’s most wanted man. On 1st May 2011, the United States Navy, Sea, Air and Land (SEAL) Teams killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. President Barak Obama announced the next day that “Osama bin Laden is ‘no more’ and justice was done to the victims of the 2001 September 11 attacks”.

1 President G W Bush’s words2 cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church Paragraph 22653 M L King – Where Do We Go From Here (book)

7

news of Osama bin Laden was aired, we were also presented with a group of people in Washington DC chanting “USA! USA!” and rejoicing at the death of Osama bin Laden. Notwithstanding that these images on both occasions may well be the populist exaggerations of small groups of fanatics and their antics, or that the celebrations were even more widespread than presented in the

manipulating religion to that end,” and added that his death is “an opportunity to reflect on each person’s responsibility, before God and humanity.” Equally important, he expressed the hope that the event would not “become another occasion to disseminate hate, but rather to foster peace.”

The full circumstances of what transpired in the

4 Zenit report: http://www.zenit.org/article-32455?l=english5 Catechism of the Catholic Church – paragraph 22676 Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, the Gospel of Life, paragraph 56

...the death of any human person should never be an occasion to rejoice. If we rejoice at the death of another human being, no matter how unjust that person was – we strip ourselves of our very human dignity.

“

“

media, the death of any human person should never be an occasion to rejoice. If we rejoice at the death of another human being, no matter how unjust that person was – we strip ourselves of our very human dignity.

The Catholic Church, through the Vatican Press Office4 called for reflection, not celebration, in the wake of the death of Osama bin Laden. Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, the director of the Vatican press office, issued a statement saying that “a Christian never takes pleasure from the fact of a man’s death”, noting also that bin Laden “claimed responsibility for grave acts that spread division and hate among the peoples,

last moments of Osama bin Laden’s death, and whether the SEALS were ordered to kill him or to arrest him, may never be fully revealed. Leaving aside complex issues of international law, when there are means of rendering an unjust

aggressor incapable of doing harm, the option must always be to choose these first5, for in our modern age, the cases in which the “execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically non-existent”6. True justice always upholds the sacredness and dignity of a human life – even that of an enemy. When we lose sight of the sacredness of human life, we lose our very own dignity as humans.

8

The members of the Commission wish to declare their solidaritywith all those who continue to be affected and are suffering as a result of

the ongoing earthquakes in the Canterbury region.As we turn our attention to the ongoing recovery efforts,

the leaders and decision makers of our city’s future face difficult challenges.In Catholic Social Teaching terms, they face the basic moral test

of how a society treats its most vulnerable members.This stems from the simple but challenging command to

love our neighbour as ourselves.

Members of the CCJP 2011: Most Reverend Bishop Barry Jones, Father Michael Pui (Convenor), Grant Segar (Secretary),Aaron Milnes, Liz McKay, Dr Arnold Parr, Ron Healing, Marisha Dorrance, Michael McCosker,

Bob and Barbara Te Miha, and Paul Deacon

The name of the newsletter, which is Latin for the dignity of the person, expresses the cornerstone principle of Catholic Social Teaching:

“the human person...is and ought to be the principle,the subject and the end of all socia l institutions.”

No 1881, Catechism of the Catholic Church

Previous issues of Dignitas Humana are available online:www.chch.catholic.org.nz/dignitashumana